From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932068AbWDXIhW (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:37:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932079AbWDXIhW (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:37:22 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:30677 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932068AbWDXIhU (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:37:20 -0400 Subject: Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks) From: Arjan van de Ven To: Lars Marowsky-Bree Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060424082831.GI440@marowsky-bree.de> References: <20060417173319.GA11506@infradead.org> <20060417195146.GA8875@kroah.com> <1145309184.14497.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200604180229.k3I2TXXA017777@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <4445484F.1050006@novell.com> <20060420211308.GB2360@ucw.cz> <444AF977.5050201@novell.com> <200604230933.k3N9XTZ8019756@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20060423145846.GA7495@thorium.jmh.mhn.de> <20060424082831.GI440@marowsky-bree.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:37:17 +0200 Message-Id: <1145867837.3116.7.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 10:28 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2006-04-23T16:58:47, Thomas Bleher wrote: > > > Later, the admin decides to save space, deletes the bin/ directory and > > instead links /bin/ls into the chroot. Suddenly the system is easily > > exploitable. > > Security models can be compromised by root or by dumb accomplices. Film > at eleven. well this security model wants to partition root, more or less. So to some degree looking at it makes sense; just not so much in the given example ;) > Seriously, this is not helpful. Could we instead focus on the > technical argument wrt the kernel patches? I disagree with your stance here; trying to poke holes in the mechanism IS useful and important. In addition to looking at the kernel patches. I understand your employer wants this merged asap, but that's no reason to try to stop discussions that try to poke holes in the security model.