Re: A basic question about the security_* hooks

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 878 bytes --]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:51:49 +0900, Tetsuo Handa said:

> Yes, to fix SELinux is the right answer if we can integrate TOMOYO into
> SELinux. But SELinux had been advertised as label based access control and had
> been rejecting pathname based access control. I doubt SELinux wants to
> integrate pathname based access control.

No, that's missing the point.  Let's say you have an SELinux system, and
you want to use TOMOYO on top of it (or the other way around, it works either
way).  Now hopefully, you're not doing it just to prove it can be done, you're
doing it because you have a specific issue or threat model that TOMOYO can
address that SELinux can't - for instance "A program can do FOO, BAR, and
then BAZ, and SELinux is unable to stop that but TOMOYO can".

So the question becomes "*why* can't SELinux stop FOO, BAR, BAZ, and can it
be fixed to be able to do so?"


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]