Re: Out of tree module using LSM

From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	"Tvrtko A. Ursulin" <tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Out of tree module using LSM
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:53:46 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711290152470.22052@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071129003840.GA22530@kroah.com>


On Nov 28 2007 16:38, Greg KH wrote:
>> 
>> And if we are talking about the situation when files are written to
>> in controlled way (i.e. we are not concerned with malware running on
>> the box in question and just want to stop it from passing through
>> mailsewer, etc.), then there's no damn need to play with LSM - just
>> have e.g. coda with its commit-on-close and run the scanner on
>> commit.  End of story.  Mind you, in such setups one would be much
>> better off just having the mail server run the tests explicitly in
>> the userland, along with the rest of anti-spam, etc. filters.
>
>I've repeated the above statements so many times to a number of the
>anti-virus companies, and other people that really should know better,
>that I'm really sick of it.  For some reason, they keep trying to do
>things like this in the kernel, despite it being trivial to do in
>userspace properly.
>
Do you mean something along the lines of FUSE?