Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 07:56:53AM -0500, Scott Preece wrote:
> On 7/19/07, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>
>> > If we could get a few (non-afilliated :) people who work with
>> > customers in the security field to tell us whether this is being
>> > used, that would be very helpful.  Not sure how to get that.
>>
>> The mainline kernel does not cater to out of tree code.
>
> Please distinguish between "cater to" and "support". If the kernel
> didn't worry about supporting out-of-tree code, then why would there
> be loadable module at all?
>...

Distribution kernels need modules or the kernel images would be 
extremely large.

> Another twist is to use a tool to generate the module from a
> policy-definition file; this could be done at boot-time or could be
> done to replace the current policy on a running system (perhaps to add
> a new domain corresponding to a newly added service). Yes, this would
> need to be done with a lot of care, but part of providing mechanism
> (rather than policy) is enabling people to use the mechanism in the
> ways they prefer.

Why do you need to generate a module for changing a policy?

Software like SELinux contains the mechanisms to change the policy 
without having to change the kernel.

> scott

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed