Re: A basic question about the security_* hooks

[David P. Quigley]

On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 18:05 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx):
> > Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > > I'm behind you 100%. Use the LSM. Your module is exactly why we have
> > > the blessed thing. Once we get a collection of otherwise unrelated
> > > LSMs the need for a stacker will be sufficiently evident that we'll
> > > be able to get one done properly.
> > 
> > My immediate impression is that the big limitation today is the
> > sharing of the void * security data members of strucutres.
> > 
> > Otherwise multiple security modules could be as simple as.
> > list_for_each(mod)
> >         if (mod->op(...) != 0)
> > 		return -EPERM.
> > 
> > It isn't hard to multiplex a single data field into several with a
> > nice little abstraction.
> > 
> > With my maintainer of a general purpose kernel hat on I would love to
> > be able to build in all of the security modules and select at boot
> > time which ones were enabled.
> 
> You're supposed to be able to do that now - use the "security=smack"
> or whatever boot option (see security/security.c:choose_lsm() ).
> 
> -serge
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Ubuntu and SuSe currently do this and it is what allows them to ship a
kernel with both AppArmor and SELinux support built in.

Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/