Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Stephen Smalley (sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 11:10 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:33:24PM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> > > The LSM interface is also being abused by several proprietary kernel 
> > > modules, some of which are not even security related.  In one case, 
> > > there's code which dangerously revectors SELinux with a shim layer 
> > > designed to try and bypass the GPL.  Some of this is a response to 
> > > unexporting the syscall table, where projects which abused that have now 
> > > switched to LSM.
> > 
> > I agree that this is happening today.  Which makes me wonder, why is the
> > variable "security_ops" exported through "EXPORT_SYMBOL()" and not
> > "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()"?  It seems that people are taking advantage of
> > this and changing it would help slow them down a bit.
> > 
> > Chris, would you take a patch to change this?
> 
> Seems like a rather weak mechanism.   Compared to eliminating
> security_ops altogether.

Yup, that'll achieve the goal as well  :-)

-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/