Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak

[Mimi Zohar]

On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 16:09 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > 
> > Mandatory Access Control(MAC) modules (i.e. SELinux, smack, etc) and
> > integrity (i.e IMA) are two different aspects of security.  The LSM
> > hooks, which includes security_inode_free(), are used to implement MAC,
> > not integrity.
> 
> So?
> 
> It's under security/integrity. And it's a level of detail that fs/inode.c 
> really doesn't care about.
> 
> The VFS layer cares NOT AT ALL about your "different aspects of security", 
> nor should it. The fact that security people think SELinux and IMA are 
> different is irrelavant - fs/inode.c just doesn't care. Why should it?
> 
> 		Linus

Today the security calls are synomymous with MAC.  If I understand
correctly, you're suggesting we need to have a single security layer,
which, depending on the hook, calls either MAC or integrity, or both.

Makes sense. Copying the LSM mailing list on this discussion.

Mimi Zohar

--
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/