From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262906AbTDOSZ5 (for ); Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:25:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262992AbTDOSZy (for ); Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:25:54 -0400 Received: from siaag1ad.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.6]:21679 "EHLO siaag1ad.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262906AbTDOSZL (for ); Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:25:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:33:53 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Extended Attributes for Security Modules To: Stephen Smalley Cc: linux-kernel Message-ID: <200304151436_MC3-1-3487-2164@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Smalley wrote: > In practice, I would > expect that any "stacking" of multiple security modules that use > security fields and xattr will actually involve creation of a new module > that integrates the logic of the individual modules. This is preferable > anyway to ensure that the interactions among the security modules are > well understood, that the logic is combined in a sensible manner, and > that the individual logics can not subvert one another. On FreeBSD 5 you 'stack' the mac_biba and mac_mls modules to get both integrity and confidentiality, right? Or is that something different? -- Chuck