[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 00/19] LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Casey Schaufler wrote:

> > How do you plan to handle LKM-based LSMs?
> My position all along has been that I don't plan to handle LKM
> based LSMs, but that I won't do anything to prevent someone else
> from adding them later. I believe that I've done that. Several
> designs, including a separate list for dynamically loaded modules
> have been proposed. I think some of those would work.

Dynamically loadable LSMs are a bad idea, per several previous
discussions. As a general design concept, kernel security mechanisms
should be invoked during boot, so we can reason about the overall state of
the system at a given point.

In any case, we do not need to take dynamic LSMs into account at this
stage. We don't build infrastructure for non-existent features.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-01 20:00    [W:0.128 / U:0.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site