[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 00:10:07 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Cc: jmorris@...ei.org, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
hch@...radead.org, igor.stoppa@...wei.com, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
paul@...l-moore.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head
Alan Cox wrote:
> > I saw several companies who ship their embedded devices with
> > single-function LSM modules (e.g. restrict only mount operation and
> > ptrace operation). What is unfortunate is that their LSM modules had
> > never been proposed for upstream, and thus bugs remained unnoticed.
>
> So which of them cannot be done with seccomp ? We have a small tight
> interface for simple things like restricting a few calls.
They restricted based on hard-coded rules. seccomp is too much for their cases.
>
> > via lack of ability to use LKM-based LSM modules). My customers cannot afford
> > enabling SELinux, but my customers cannot rebuild their kernels because
> > rebuilding makes it even more difficult to get help from support centers.
>
> And "I've loaded this third party module" doesn't ?
Situation is far much better than "I've recompiled this vmlinux". ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
