Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 00:10:07 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <>
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.