From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 15:43:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head In-Reply-To: <201705311941.CGD64590.MOFSOLFJtQFOVH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> References: <201705281026.EHD04622.HJFOLQFMSOtFOV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201705302329.IEB05735.FLJOFHSQVtOOFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170530162550.19ba1811@alans-desktop> <201705311941.CGD64590.MOFSOLFJtQFOVH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Message-ID: <20170531154317.4f487300@alans-desktop> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org > I saw several companies who ship their embedded devices with > single-function LSM modules (e.g. restrict only mount operation and > ptrace operation). What is unfortunate is that their LSM modules had > never been proposed for upstream, and thus bugs remained unnoticed. So which of them cannot be done with seccomp ? We have a small tight interface for simple things like restricting a few calls. > via lack of ability to use LKM-based LSM modules). My customers cannot afford > enabling SELinux, but my customers cannot rebuild their kernels because > rebuilding makes it even more difficult to get help from support centers. And "I've loaded this third party module" doesn't ? Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html