[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
