On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 01:08, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 04:54:37PM -0500, Stephen D. Smalley wrote:
> > This patch adds a LSM sysctl hook for controlling access to
> > sysctl variables to 2.5.59, split out from the lsm-2.5 BitKeeper tree.
> > SELinux uses this hook to control such accesses in accordance with the
> > security policy configuration.
> I'm not very happy with this hook. This means every single security
> module needs a list of all sensitive sysctl variables, i.e. we duplicate
> information in (possible a large number of) different places.
> What's the reason you can't just live with DAC for sysctls?
What exactly do you mean by "live with DAC" in this context? If you mean
"allow UID==0 processes to do whatever they like" then it's not going to work
for any sort of chroot setup.
-- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:22 EST