Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code

• Previous message: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• In reply to: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• Next in thread: Serge E. Hallyn: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• Next in thread: Casey Schaufler: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• Next in thread: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• Reply: Serge E. Hallyn: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

* serue@private (serue@private) wrote:
> Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@private):
> > The primary purpose of the hooks is access control.  Some of them, of
> > course, are helpers to keep labels coherent.  IIRC, James objected
> > because the measurement data was simply collected from these hooks.
> 
> Ok, so to be clear, any module which does not directly impose some form
> of access control is not eligible for an LSM?

That's exactly the intention, yes.

thanks,
-chris

• Previous message: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• In reply to: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• Next in thread: Serge E. Hallyn: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• Next in thread: Casey Schaufler: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• Next in thread: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• Reply: Serge E. Hallyn: "Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Jun 15 2005 - 14:58:59 PDT