Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting James Morris (jmorris@xxxxxxxxx):
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> 
> > It's useful for some LSMs to be modular, and LSMs which are y/n options won't 
> > have any security architecture issues with unloading at all. 
> 
> Which LSMs?  Upstream, there are SELinux and capabilty, and they're not 
> safe as loadable modules.
> 
> > The mere fact 
> > that SELinux cannot be built as a module is a rather weak argument for 
> > disabling LSM modules as a whole, so  please don't.
> 
> That's not the argument.  Please review the thread.

The argument is 'abuse', right?

Abuse is defined as using the LSM hooks for non-security applications,
right?

It seems to me that the community is doing a good job of discouraging
such abuse - by redirecting the "wrong-doers" to implement proper
upstream solutions, i.e. taskstats, the audit subsystem, etc.

Such encouragement seems a far better response than taking away freedoms
and flexibility from everyone.

-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/