From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750994AbWDSQmT (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:42:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750999AbWDSQmT (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:42:19 -0400 Received: from web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.22]:8892 "HELO web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750975AbWDSQmS (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:42:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20060419164217.53082.qmail@web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-RocketYMMF: rancidfat Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:42:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Casey Schaufler Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks To: Stephen Smalley Cc: James Morris , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fireflier-devel@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <1145451264.24289.53.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- Stephen Smalley wrote: > This would be fine, if the technical approach were > sound (not necessarily the same as SELinux, but sound) Please accept that this is a judgement call. > and fit properly with the LSM interface. Of course LSM will fit SELinux better than it fits AppArmour, LSM has been adapted to fit the needs of SELinux. Once AppArmour, LIDS, and friends have been accepted LSM will adjust to serve them better just as it has done for SELinux. If the arguement is that a module can't be accepted because it doesn't do the same things SELinux does, and that there's no point in accepting it if it does the same things SELinux does I will admit that you have all the bases covered. > But the path-based approach isn't technically sound, That is certainly true for a Common Criteria system. There are clued individuals who understand all the underlying technology who still care about *any* file called /etc/shadow, chroot, mount, vfs, and phase of the moon notwithstanding. > and even if we were to assume that it was, it isn't even > a good fit for the LSM hook interfaces. SELinux wasn't always a good fit either. LSM accomodated SELinux. Offer the same community cooperation to other you have yourself received. Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com