From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell Coker Reply-To: russell@coker.com.au To: Albert Cahalan , Stephen Smalley Subject: Re: threads Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:09:05 +1100 Cc: SELinux@tycho.nsa.gov References: <1072454081.827.103.camel@cube> <1072712224.845.66.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1074647474.953.40407.camel@cube> In-Reply-To: <1074647474.953.40407.camel@cube> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200401211609.05416.russell@coker.com.au> Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:11, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > For MAC, per-thread contexts make little sense > > since you cannot enforce any separation of the memory. > > This is not quite right. A server daemon using > per-thread contexts is clearly within your trusted > computing base, just as the kernel is. This can > improve security over the obvious alternative of > having the server run in a context that can do > anything. Also having threads in different contexts may be helpful for file servers. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.