Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks

Emily Ratliff
2006-04-19T17:57:51Z

On 4/19/06, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> BTW, since you point to LOMAC as evidence, can you point to an actual
> user community that uses LOMAC?
EVM & SLIM are part of IBM's internal supported Linux desktop, so
there are quite a few users.

> My concerns with low water mark were noted in
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113232319627338&w=2
...
And Tim Fraser's and Dave Safford's responses are noted in
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113323166505015&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113337110408758&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113234278611701&w=2

> If such models can demonstrate their viability, then you can ultimately
> submit a patch to extend SELinux/Flask to support them - I have no
> problem with that (again, if they can be shown to be viable and
> implementation is correct).
Dave has an existing implementation with a user base of a formally
proven security model. He is addressing implementation concerns and
continuing to try to get SLIM accepted. Why should he be required to
extend SELinux?