From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] capsicum: implementations of new LSM hooks Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:49:24 -0400 Message-ID: <1871630.hB3tXi0r3a@sifl> References: <1404124096-21445-1-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com> <1404124096-21445-10-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Drysdale Cc: Andy Lutomirski , LSM List , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Alexander Viro , Meredydd Luff , Kees Cook , James Morris , Linux API List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Monday, June 30, 2014 09:05:38 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:28 AM, David Drysdale wrote: > > If the LSM does not provide implementations of the .file_lookup and > > .file_install LSM hooks, always use the Capsicum implementations. > > > > The Capsicum implementation of file_lookup checks for a Capsicum > > capability wrapper file and unwraps to if the appropriate rights > > are available. > > > > The Capsicum implementation of file_install checks whether the file > > has restricted rights associated with it. If it does, it is replaced > > with a Capsicum capability wrapper file before installation into the > > fdtable. > > I think I fall on the "no LSM" side of the fence. This kind of stuff > should be available regardless of selected LSM (as it is in your > code) ... I agree. Looking quickly at the patches, the code seems to take an odd approach of living largely outside the LSM framework, but then relying on a couple of LSM hooks. Capsicum should either live fully as a LSM or fully outside of it, this mix seems a bit silly to me. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com