From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: LKLM <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
SE Linux <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 3/6] LSM: Explicit individual LSM associations
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 18:18:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3087749.g8XAFtub5d@sifl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51FADDE4.8080805@schaufler-ca.com>
On Thursday, August 01, 2013 03:15:00 PM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/1/2013 2:30 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:52:14 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> On 8/1/2013 11:35 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> Okay, so if I understand everything correctly, there are no new entries
> >>> in
> >>> /proc relating specifically to NetLabel, XFRM, or Secmark; although
> >>> there
> >>> are new LSM specific entries for the general /proc entries that exist
> >>> now. Yes?
> >>
> >> That's correct.
> >>
> >> There is /sys/kernel/security/present, which tells you which LSM is going
> >> to show up in /proc/.../attr/current.
> >>
> >> Should we have /sys/kernel/security/XFRM, /sys/kernel/security/secmark,
> >> /sys/kernel/security/NetLabel and /sys/kernel/security/SO_PEERCRED?
> >
> > Maybe.
> >
> > While they might be helpful, I'm not 100% certain they are needed and
> > further I'm not sure they are the "right" solution at this point. Any
> > thoughts, both for and against, are welcome.
>
> What might be a more correct solution? Assuming, of course, that there's
> a real problem.
Well, like I said, I'm not sure they are needed in the first place, in other
words, I'm not sure there is a problem. As for the correct solution, I think
we need to understand the problem, if there is one, before we can understand
the solution.
How is that for an answer? :)
In short, I think we are best leaving them out until something comes along
which requires that we add the /proc entries.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-01 22:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-25 18:22 [PATCH v14 0/6] LSM: Multiple concurrent LSMs Casey Schaufler
2013-07-25 18:32 ` [PATCH v14 1/6] LSM: Security blob abstraction Casey Schaufler
2013-07-29 21:15 ` Kees Cook
2013-07-30 1:49 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-07-25 18:32 ` [PATCH v14 2/6] LSM: Move the capability LSM into the hook handlers Casey Schaufler
2013-07-25 18:32 ` [PATCH v14 3/6] LSM: Explicit individual LSM associations Casey Schaufler
2013-07-29 20:51 ` Kees Cook
2013-07-30 1:48 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-07-30 22:08 ` Paul Moore
2013-07-31 16:22 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-07-31 19:39 ` Paul Moore
2013-07-31 21:21 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-08-01 18:35 ` Paul Moore
2013-08-01 18:52 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-08-01 21:30 ` Paul Moore
2013-08-01 22:15 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-08-01 22:18 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2013-07-25 18:32 ` [PATCH v14 4/6] LSM: List based multiple LSM hooks Casey Schaufler
2013-07-25 18:32 ` [PATCH v14 5/6] LSM: SO_PEERSEC configuration options Casey Schaufler
2013-07-30 21:47 ` Paul Moore
2013-07-31 15:45 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-07-31 17:56 ` Paul Moore
2013-07-25 18:32 ` [PATCH v14 6/6] LSM: Multiple LSM Documentation and cleanup Casey Schaufler
2013-07-26 23:17 ` Randy Dunlap
2013-07-28 18:46 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-08-01 2:48 ` [PATCH v14 0/6] LSM: Multiple concurrent LSMs Balbir Singh
2013-08-01 17:21 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-08-06 3:28 ` Balbir Singh
2013-08-06 6:30 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-06 22:25 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-08-06 22:36 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-27 2:29 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-08-28 15:55 ` Kees Cook
2013-09-05 18:48 ` Kees Cook
2013-09-06 6:44 ` Casey Schaufler
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=3087749.g8XAFtub5d@sifl \
--to=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--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