Re: [PATCH][RFC] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>]

Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@schaufler-ca.com):
> 
> --- "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
> 
> > Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org):
> > > Convert LSM into a static interface, as the ability to unload a security 
> > > module is not required by in-tree users and potentially complicates the 
> > > overall security architecture.
> > > 
> > > Needlessly exported LSM symbols have been unexported, to help reduce API 
> > > abuse.
> > > 
> > > Module parameters for the capability and root_plug modules have been
> > > converted to kernel parameters.
> > > 
> > > The SECURITY_FRAMEWORK_VERSION macro has also been removed.
> > 
> > Sigh, as much as I would *like* to stay out of this (I don't
> > use modules at all on any system where I can avoid it), won't
> > it make development - and especially testing - of new lsms
> > much more painful and therefore less likely?
> 
> While there's lots of pain involved in developing an LSM
> modern development environments (e.g. virtual machines)
> have reduced the value of loadable modules for debug purposes.
> 
> > I realize there has been a dearth of new LSMs to date,
> 
> but so much excitment over those proposed!
> 
> > but if
> > for instance a new solaris 10 based capability module were written,
> > well, people would want to be able to
> > 
> > 	rmmod capability
> > 	modprobe cap_prm
> 
> I think the value is overrated. You would never want to do that
> in a production environment, and in a debug environment you could
> just as easily reboot and get some start-up testing out of the way.

And in a development environment you can just as easily select
CONFIG_XYZ=y, no?

So we have two options, one which provides greater choice and
flexibility.

-serge