Re: [RFC][Patch 1/6] integrity: new hooks

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> 
> --- "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> > It's unfortunate, agreed, but
> > 
> > use of LSM as an integrity framework was also a
> > no-go.
> 
> You're going to have to justify this assertion.

You misunderstand.  I wasn't saying it wouldn't work :)  I was saying
that it's been said repeatedly that evm should be implemented as an
integrity, not security, module.

I think it should be done as both.  The part which measures the
integrity of files should be an integrity subsystem.  The part which
uses those results to either allow/refuse actions or take some other
action (i.e. shut down the system) should be an lsm.

> I know of at least one work-in-progress for which
> LSM works just fine. Not to mention the Integrity
> claims of SELinux.

-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/