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

Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-26T03:57:44Z

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.

-serge