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

Christian Ehrhardt
2007-07-19T07:50:28Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1588 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 06:35:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:37:01 -0400 (EDT)
> James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
>
> > Convert LSM into a static interface, as the ability to unload a security
> > module is not required by in-tree users and potentially complicates the
> > overall security architecture.
> >
> > Needlessly exported LSM symbols have been unexported, to help reduce API
> > abuse.
> >
> > Parameters for the capability and root_plug modules are now specified
> > at boot.
> >
> > The SECURITY_FRAMEWORK_VERSION macro has also been removed.
>
> I'd like to understand who is (or claims to be) adversely affected by this
> change, and what their complaints (if any) will be.

I am currently loading and unloading a prototype like security module
on a regular basis. The fact that such a module can be loaded and
unloaded (albeit in an unsecure way) greatly simplifies development.
Thus this change will adversely affect me and probably also others that
develop LSMs.

Additionally deployment of and choice among legitimate security modules
that may or may not (yet) be part of the main kernel tree is simplified by
an option to load these security modules (e.g. at boot time) into a running
kernel. This way a distribution can provide AppArmor, SELinux, SecLevl and
whatever as options very much in the same way that this works for a driver.

> Because I prefer my flamewars pre- rather than post-merge.

You asked for oppinion. I do not plan to engage in any flamewars.

regards Christian

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]