From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: serge@hallyn.com (Serge E. Hallyn) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:51:06 -0500 Subject: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 00/11] S.A.R.A. a new stacked LSM In-Reply-To: <1499959179.4220.45.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1497286620-15027-1-git-send-email-s.mesoraca16@gmail.com> <53a2d710-b0f0-cdf9-e7ad-cd8d03fc835a@digikod.net> <69ff2195-d0e1-8a0f-b80e-5d8d55947907@nmatt.com> <1499801476.6034.265.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <988555a2-bed9-234c-843c-0bb68dc60d3f@nmatt.com> <1499959179.4220.45.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20170713195106.GD4895@mail.hallyn.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar at linux.vnet.ibm.com): > On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 08:39 -0400, Matt Brown wrote: > The question is really from a security perspective which is better? > ?Obviously, as v2 of the patch set changed from using pathnames to > inodes, it's pretty clear that I think inodes would be better. ?Kees, > Serge, Casey any comments? Yes, inode seems clearly better. Paths are too easily worked around. -- 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