Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 16:14:54 +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 On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 00:10:07 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote: > 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. Seccomp is tiny. They may not know how to use it but the job of the kernel is to provide generic interfaces. Seccomp seems to do that just fine for simple stuff. 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.