Re: [RFC][Patch 2/6] integrity: fs hook placement

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx):
> * Serge E. Hallyn (serue@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Are you objecting only to the duplication at the callsites, so that an
> > fsnotify-type of consolidation of security and integrity hooks would be
> > ok?  Or are you complaining that the security_inode_setxattr and
> > integrity_inode_setxattr hooks are too similar anyway, and integrity
> > modules should just use some lsm hooks for anything which will be
> > authoritative?
> 
> It's duplication of callsites with many identical implementations
> that's the problem.

Yes it's ugly...

But I guess it gets a point across :)

> > (I could see an argument that integirty subsystem should be purely for
> > measuring and hence its hooks should never return a value.  Only hitch
> > there is that if integrity subsystem hits ENOMEM it should be able to
> > refuse the action...)
> 
> Right, that's what I was expecting to see, just the measurement
> infrastructure.

So what you are saying is EVM would stay an LSM, with a cooperating
integrity subsystem *just* doing measurements?

That's kind of what i was expecting too, however that doesn't fit as
well with the idea that an integrity subsystem prevents the need for lsm
stacking.  I think the idea was that evm would still be able to enforce
integrity of selinux xattrs without it stack with selinux.  So I can see
where this approach came from.

-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/