Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:06:44 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface |
| |
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 - 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) |