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

[Stephen Smalley]

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 13:52 -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:11:54 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:06:57PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > >> 
> > > >> Well then, have a look at http://alphagate.hopto.org/multiadm/
> > > >> 
> > > >
> > > >hmm on first sight that seems to be basically an extension to the
> > > >existing capability() code... rather than a 'real' LSM module. Am I
> > > >missing something here?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > (So what's the definition for a "real" LSM module?)
> > 
> > No idea, try submitting the patch :)
> 
> hrm, I guess the smiley is supposed to help??
> 
> surely someone knows that it takes to qualify as a "real"
> LSM module.  I would have expected Greg to be in that group
> of people.

Herein lies the basic problem with LSM - it is not a well-defined
framework in any sense.  Versus say the Flask architecture within
SELinux, which establishes a framework with well-defined semantics that
can support a wide range of security models, but not arbitrary ones.

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency

-
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/