From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933036AbXCHSsj (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:48:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933038AbXCHSsj (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:48:39 -0500 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:49274 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933036AbXCHSsi (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:48:38 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:46:47 -0600 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Casey Schaufler Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Mimi Zohar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, safford@watson.ibm.com, serue@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kjhall@linux.vnet.ibm.com, zohar@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch 1/6] integrity: new hooks Message-ID: <20070308184646.GC21099@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> References: <20070308170001.GA17304@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <33939.11500.qm@web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <33939.11500.qm@web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@schaufler-ca.com): > > --- "Serge E. Hallyn" wrote: > > > > It's unfortunate, agreed, but > > > > use of LSM as an integrity framework was also a > > no-go. > > You're going to have to justify this assertion. You misunderstand. I wasn't saying it wouldn't work :) I was saying that it's been said repeatedly that evm should be implemented as an integrity, not security, module. I think it should be done as both. The part which measures the integrity of files should be an integrity subsystem. The part which uses those results to either allow/refuse actions or take some other action (i.e. shut down the system) should be an lsm. > I know of at least one work-in-progress for which > LSM works just fine. Not to mention the Integrity > claims of SELinux. -serge