Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 9 Feb 2003 20:06:26 +0000 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59 |
| |
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:20:08PM -0500, jmjones@jmjones.com wrote: > I disagree. The code submitted BOTH addresses the current needs and > "vaguely anticipated future needs" (which I shall define as VAFN).
What is the "current needs" given that selinux is the only module actually using it and it's neither in a mergeable shape nor is it legally clear whether it can be merged?
> Open your mind. LSM supports both all current solutions for object-level > security AND provides a valid basis for moving Linux toward providing, AS > AN OPTION, true security. Personally, I don't think LSM is the "be all > and end all" of a security interface, at this point, but I *do* think it's > the best first-draft of a system that can lead to that end.
you don't get tru security by adding hooks. security needs a careful design and more strict access control policy can but don't have to be part of that design.
> What's your REAL problem? Somebody stepping on your territory?
The real problem is adding mess to the kernel.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |