[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1706091353380.8421@namei.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:54:25 +1000 (AEST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Matt Brown <matt@...tt.com>
cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] LSM: Security module blob
management
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Matt Brown wrote:
> On 6/8/17 4:43 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > Subject: [PATCH 0/6] LSM: Security module blob management
> >
> > This patch set moves management of security blobs out of
> > the Linux security modules and into the security module
> > infrastructure. This allows "major" security modules that
> > use blobs to be stacked, just as "minor" modules that
> > do not use blobs can be stacked today. It stops short of
> > providing a safe interface for the Netlabel and SO_PEERSEC.
> > As a result, any of the existing security modules may be
> > used in combination except for SELinux and Smack.
>
> Very excited about this! I can definitely see use cases for special
> purpose LSMs that require data blobs but do not replace things like
> SELinux, SMACK or AppArmor. I have had a few ideas recently that would
> not be possible under the current setup of one shared blob.
Please post details of these ideas once you have say a prototype working
with Casey's patches.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
