Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@xxxxxxxx):
> * serue@xxxxxxxxxx (serue@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@xxxxxxxx):
> > > The primary purpose of the hooks is access control.  Some of them, of
> > > course, are helpers to keep labels coherent.  IIRC, James objected
> > > because the measurement data was simply collected from these hooks.
> > 
> > Ok, so to be clear, any module which does not directly impose some form
> > of access control is not eligible for an LSM?
> 
> That's exactly the intention, yes.

Ok, thanks.

I thought it was intended to be more general than that - in fact I
specifically thought it was not intended to be purely for single machine
authentication decisions within a single kernel module, but that anything
which would aid in enabling new security features, locally or remotely,
would be game.  (Which - it means nothing - but I would clearly have
preferred :)

Thanks for setting me straight.

-serge

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/