From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov,
jmorris@nameil.org, morgan@kernel.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com,
esandeen@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v1 1/3] SECURITY: new capable_noaudit interface
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:29:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081030152940.GA24853@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081029190652.31292.5901.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com>
Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com):
> Add a new capable interface that will be used by systems that use audit to
> make an A or B type decision instead of a security decision. Currently
> this is the case at least for filesystems when deciding if a process can use
> the reserved 'root' blocks and for the case of things like the oom
> algorithm determining if processes are root processes and should be less
> likely to be killed. These types of security system requests should not be
> audited or logged since they are not really security decisions. It would be
> possible to solve this problem like the vm_enough_memory security check did
> by creating a new LSM interface and moving all of the policy into that
> interface but proves the needlessly bloat the LSM and provide complex
> indirection.
>
> This merely allows those decisions to be made where they belong and to not
> flood logs or printk with denials for thing that are not security decisions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Please introduce some meaningful defines instead of passing 0 and 1.
I.e.
#define CAP_NOAUDIT 0
#define CAP_AUDIT 1
Otherwise, looks fine.
thanks,
-serge
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-30 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-29 19:06 [PATCH -v1 1/3] SECURITY: new capable_noaudit interface Eric Paris
2008-10-29 19:06 ` [PATCH -v1 2/3] vm: use new has_capability_noaudit Eric Paris
2008-10-29 19:15 ` Stephen Smalley
2008-10-29 19:57 ` Eric Paris
2008-10-29 19:07 ` [PATCH -v1 3/3] filesystems: use has_capability_noaudit interface for reserved blocks checks Eric Paris
2008-10-30 15:29 ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2008-10-30 16:46 ` [PATCH -v1 1/3] SECURITY: new capable_noaudit interface Paul Moore
2008-10-30 17:17 ` Eric Paris
2008-10-30 17:29 ` Paul Moore
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081030152940.GA24853@us.ibm.com \
--to=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=esandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@nameil.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=morgan@kernel.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox