Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown

Kees Cook
2013-09-09T23:34:11Z

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:30 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 16:20 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:19 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>> > And if SELinux can do the job, what is the reason for creating this new
>> > option?
>>
>> Not everyone uses SELinux. :) Also, it's rarely controlled the things
>> we want to control here.
>
> It comes on by default (or its equivalent: AppArmour) in almost every
> shipping distro.

Right, if "LSM" was meant here, yeah, I do use an LSM. But they, as a
class of security policy in the kernel, handle isolation of entirely
different things. The goal of "no way to mess with ring-0" isn't
really related to the goals of the LSM in general, or specific MACs in
particular.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security