Re: kernel stack challenge

["John Stoffel" <stoffel@lucent.com>]

>>>>> "Sergiy" == Sergiy Lozovsky <serge_lozovsky@yahoo.com> writes:

Sergiy> Basically there are two reasons.

Sergiy> 1. Give system administrator possibility to change security
Sergiy> policy easy enough without C programminig inside the kernel
Sergiy> (we should not expect system administartor to be a kernel
Sergiy> guru). Language of higher lavel make code more compact (C - is
Sergiy> too low level, that's why people use PERL for example or
Sergiy> LISP). Lisp was chosen because of very compact VM - around
Sergiy> 100K.

Why in god's name does this need to be in the kernel?  This is purely
a userspace issue, and the tool for managing the security policy
should be completely in userspace.  

Under this design, /bin/ls would be a kernel module, and not a
userspace tool!   

If you ever want to even think about getting this project into the
kernel, you'll have to re-design what you're doing here, since there's
absolutely no need for anything like this in the kernel.

Sergiy> 2. Protect system from bugs in security policy created by
Sergiy> system administrator (user).  

C'mon, GIGO will kill you from user space or from kernel space.  What
makes you think LISP will protect you?  

Sergiy> LISP interpreter is a LISP Virtual Machine (as Java VM). So
Sergiy> all bugs are incapsulated and don't affect kernel.

Then *WHY* does the LISP interpreter need to be in the kernel in the
first place?  Hint, you just said you wanted to protect the kernel...

Sergiy> Even severe bugs in this LISP kernel module can cause
Sergiy> termination of user space application only (except of stack
Sergiy> overflow - which I can address). LISP error message will be
Sergiy> printed in the kernel log.

Hah!  You just gave the number one reason why you don't want or need a
LISP interpreter in the kernel yourself.  

John
   John Stoffel - Senior Unix Systems Administrator - Lucent Technologies
	 stoffel@lucent.com - http://www.lucent.com - 978-952-7548