Re: [PATCH 0/2] Yama: add PTRACE exception tracking

[Stephen Smalley]

On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 14:41 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Kees Cook (kees.cook@xxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> > > > I still think simple chaining is the way to go.  I want to review the
> > > > earlier discussions first (I think Serge said it was in 2004ish?) before I
> > > > write up anything.  There is, I think, one sticking point, which is
> > > > /proc/self/attr/current, but beyond that, I think some simple
> > > > reorganization of LSM initialization routines and a list that security_*
> > > > walks would be sufficient.
> > > 
> > > In the past, output results for each LSM were simply split by \n or a :
> > > or something, and input was prepended by the LSM name.
> > 
> > This doesn't appear to be true anymore.  Looking at the fs/proc/base.c and
> > security/selinux/hooks.c code, there is no checking for a prepended LSM
> > name.  Maybe that's the first chaining limitation -- you can't chain 2 LSMs
> > that both declare setprocattr hooks.
> 
> No no, Stephen and I were talking about in the stacker patchset, again
> around 2004-2005.  Never went upstream (per 2005 or 2006 ksummit
> agreement).

Patch series was also available from:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lsm-stacker/files/

Looks like it was last updated in 2006.

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency

--
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/