Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 15:43:17 +0100 From: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> 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 > 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. > 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 ? Alan
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.