From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morgan <agm@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@google.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:06:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070626140644.GB8615@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070626131519.GH1094@stusta.de>
Quoting Adrian Bunk (bunk@stusta.de):
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:57:31PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org):
> > > 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.
>
> We are not living in a world where everyone had good intentions...
Oh no, i took a wrong turn somewhere :)
> For _some_ "wrong-doers" your approach works.
>
> But how do you convince the "wrong-doers" who do things like putting
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") into their binary-only modules and who ignore you
> and get away because noone sues them?
Do these really exist? Maybe noone sues them because noone knows who
they are...
But - note that you've changed completely the meaning of 'abuse'.
So mine was wrong?
> The spirit of the GPLv2 is to defend the freedom of the software
> (different from the spirit of the BSD licence), and considering that
> there aren't many people defending the GPLv2 copyright of the Linux
> kernel at court against abusers, making it harder for people to do the
> abuse might not be the worst choice...
Well, but you seem to be saying that the license means squat, and
resorting to making things inconvenient rather than illegal.
Now I guess if it really is accepted that that's the way it should be,
then this patch will go in.
-serge
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-26 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20070611123714.GA2063@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <878322.98602.qm@web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
[not found] ` <afff21250706110926l244ddc28i44289cb08a6721e2@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20070617135239.GA17689@sergelap>
[not found] ` <4676007F.7060503@kernel.org>
[not found] ` <20070618044017.GW3723@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
[not found] ` <20070620171037.GA28670@sergelap.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20070620174613.GF3723@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
2007-06-21 16:00 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-23 8:13 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-06-24 15:51 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-24 16:18 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch James Morris
2007-06-24 20:58 ` [PATCH][RFC] security: Convert LSM into a static interface James Morris
2007-06-24 22:09 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-24 22:37 ` James Morris
2007-06-25 1:38 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-24 23:40 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-06-25 1:39 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-25 3:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-06-25 3:57 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-25 13:02 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-06-25 14:24 ` Roberto De Ioris
2007-06-25 4:33 ` [PATCH try #2] " James Morris
2007-06-25 4:48 ` Petr Vandrovec
2007-06-25 4:58 ` James Morris
2007-06-25 16:59 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-06-25 23:56 ` [PATCH try #3] " James Morris
2007-06-25 20:37 ` [PATCH try #2] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-06-25 21:14 ` James Morris
2007-06-26 3:57 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-26 13:15 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-26 14:06 ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2007-06-26 14:59 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-26 15:53 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-26 18:52 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-26 18:18 ` Greg KH
2007-06-26 18:40 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-26 4:09 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-06-26 4:25 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-06-26 13:47 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-27 0:07 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-06-27 0:57 ` Crispin Cowan
2007-06-27 1:22 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-06-27 4:24 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-27 13:41 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-27 14:36 ` James Morris
2007-06-27 17:21 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-27 18:51 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-27 19:28 ` James Morris
2007-06-28 2:48 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-25 3:57 ` [PATCH][RFC] " Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-25 4:10 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-25 4:54 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-25 13:50 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-06-25 13:54 ` James Morris
2007-06-25 14:32 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-25 15:08 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-06-27 5:00 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-06-27 13:16 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-28 6:19 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-06-28 13:36 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-28 15:14 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Casey Schaufler
2007-06-28 15:38 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-28 15:56 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Casey Schaufler
2007-06-29 5:30 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-06-29 13:24 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-29 14:46 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Casey Schaufler
2007-06-28 15:50 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-07-02 14:38 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-07-04 21:29 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-07-04 23:00 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Casey Schaufler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070626140644.GB8615@sergelap.austin.ibm.com \
--to=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=agm@google.com \
--cc=agruen@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@google.com \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).