Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-26T14:06:59Z

Quoting Adrian Bunk (bunk@stusta.de):
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:57:31PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org):
> > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's useful for some LSMs to be modular, and LSMs which are y/n options won't
> > > > have any security architecture issues with unloading at all.
> > >
> > > Which LSMs? Upstream, there are SELinux and capabilty, and they're not
> > > safe as loadable modules.
> > >
> > > > The mere fact
> > > > that SELinux cannot be built as a module is a rather weak argument for
> > > > disabling LSM modules as a whole, so please don't.
> > >
> > > That's not the argument. Please review the thread.
> >
> > The argument is 'abuse', right?
> >
> > Abuse is defined as using the LSM hooks for non-security applications,
> > right?
> >
> > It seems to me that the community is doing a good job of discouraging
> > such abuse - by redirecting the "wrong-doers" to implement proper
> > upstream solutions, i.e. taskstats, the audit subsystem, etc.
> >
> > Such encouragement seems a far better response than taking away freedoms
> > and flexibility from everyone.
>
> We are not living in a world where everyone had good intentions...

Oh no, i took a wrong turn somewhere :)

> For _some_ "wrong-doers" your approach works.
>
> But how do you convince the "wrong-doers" who do things like putting
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") into their binary-only modules and who ignore you
> and get away because noone sues them?

Do these really exist? Maybe noone sues them because noone knows who
they are...

But - note that you've changed completely the meaning of 'abuse'.
So mine was wrong?

> The spirit of the GPLv2 is to defend the freedom of the software
> (different from the spirit of the BSD licence), and considering that
> there aren't many people defending the GPLv2 copyright of the Linux
> kernel at court against abusers, making it harder for people to do the
> abuse might not be the worst choice...

Well, but you seem to be saying that the license means squat, and
resorting to making things inconvenient rather than illegal.

Now I guess if it really is accepted that that's the way it should be,
then this patch will go in.

-serge