Re: [PATCH][RFC] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx):
> * Serge E. Hallyn (serge@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Sigh, as much as I would *like* to stay out of this (I don't
> > use modules at all on any system where I can avoid it), won't
> > it make development - and especially testing - of new lsms
> > much more painful and therefore less likely?
> 
> Dev, hopefully not.  Testing, well, perhaps.
> 
> > I realize there has been a dearth of new LSMs to date, but if
> > for instance a new solaris 10 based capability module were written,
> > well, people would want to be able to
> > 
> > 	rmmod capability
> > 	modprobe cap_prm
> 
> The problem is it's not necessarily even safe to do rmmod at all.
> And modprobe may require extra labelling, or extra checks for
> unlabelled objects (perhaps not so much for your example).

Right, and given that it's trivial for the author of an LSM which
shouldn't be modular to make the LSM a boolean config rather than
tristate, it doesn't seem like a good reason to take away the
ability to have LSM modules.

-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/