From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9291BC742A7 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 04:35:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F0C217D4 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 04:35:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725921AbfGMEfx (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jul 2019 00:35:53 -0400 Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:35054 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725914AbfGMEfx (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jul 2019 00:35:53 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by namei.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x6D4Zi8o004729; Sat, 13 Jul 2019 04:35:44 GMT Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:35:44 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris To: Stephen Smalley cc: Casey Schaufler , Nicholas Franck , paul@paul-moore.com, selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net, keescook@chromium.org, serge@hallyn.com, john.johansen@canonical.com, mortonm@chromium.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] security, capability: pass object information to security_capable In-Reply-To: <4fb3a599-b1d8-7cc2-759a-02195251e344@tycho.nsa.gov> Message-ID: References: <20190712173404.14417-1-nhfran2@tycho.nsa.gov> <680c35a8-1ee5-725d-b33c-7bdced39763c@schaufler-ca.com> <16cade37-9467-ca7f-ddea-b8254c501f48@schaufler-ca.com> <4fb3a599-b1d8-7cc2-759a-02195251e344@tycho.nsa.gov> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Fri, 12 Jul 2019, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > If we want to apply least privilege, then this is a desirable facility. > > > > The capability mechanism is object agnostic by design. > > Some might argue that's a flawed design. Narrator: it's a flawed design. > > > I understand that doesn't mesh with Smack's mental modelbut it would > > > probably be useful to both SELinux and AppArmor, among others. > > > > I'm perfectly happy to have the information transmitted. > > I think a separate interface for doing so is appropriate. > > As above, I don't see any way to do that that isn't just adding overhead. > Agreed, and even so, part of the point of LSM is to allow existing security models to be extended to meet a wider range of security requirements. -- James Morris