From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wright Subject: Re: [Xense-devel][RFC][PATCH][0/4] Xen Security Modules: Intro Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:57:38 -0700 Message-ID: <20060901185738.GD21066@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <1157129851.22006.187.camel@moss-walleye.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20060901175832.GB21066@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <1157135088.22006.218.camel@moss-walleye.epoch.ncsc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1157135088.22006.218.camel@moss-walleye.epoch.ncsc.mil> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "George S. Coker, II" Cc: Chris Wright , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, xense-devel@lists.xensource.com, Jun Koi List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org * George S. Coker, II (gscoker@alpha.ncsc.mil) wrote: > On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 10:58 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > > * Jun Koi (junkoi2004@gmail.com) wrote: > > > - LSM has a problem of not supporting stacking module, and that is > > > really paint in the arse. How about XSM? Do you try to fix that > > > problem? > > > > I don't see anything in XSM that changes that limitation to LSM. In fact, > > it appears to not even support the very weak stacking via chaining > > mechanism (which is a good plan in this case). And it's questionable > > at best. Arbitrary security policies simply do not compose. > > We have made a conscious decision not to bring LSM's stacking > capabilities to Xen. Yes, I think that's a wise decision (that's what I meant by good plan). > Composition of security policies is difficult at > best, and a given security modules behavior cannot be easily predicted > under arbitrary stacking. Arbitrary stacking risks eroding the security > goals of an individual module while meeting few or none of the security > goals of the user. Stacking should be implemented within a security > module that has been designed to stack specific modules to achieve a > specific goal. Indeed. Sorry if my wording above was misleading, I'm in complete agreement. thanks, -chris > > George > > thanks, > > -chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel