Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:20:08PM -0500, jmjones@jmjones.com wrote:
> I disagree.  The code submitted BOTH addresses the current needs and
> "vaguely anticipated future needs" (which I shall define as VAFN).

What is the "current needs" given that selinux is the only module actually
using it and it's neither in a mergeable shape nor is it legally clear
whether it can be merged?

> Open your mind.  LSM supports both all current solutions for object-level
> security AND provides a valid basis for moving Linux toward providing, AS
> AN OPTION, true security.  Personally, I don't think LSM is the "be all
> and end all" of a security interface, at this point, but I *do* think it's
> the best first-draft of a system that can lead to that end.

you don't get tru security by adding hooks.  security needs a careful
design and more strict access control policy can but don't have to be part
of that design.

> What's your REAL problem?  Somebody stepping on your territory?

The real problem is adding mess to the kernel.