From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751217AbWDQTVF (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:21:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751227AbWDQTVF (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:21:05 -0400 Received: from mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.9]:64907 "EHLO mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751221AbWDQTVC (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:21:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:20:55 -0400 (EDT) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@d.namei To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton cc: Stephen Smalley , T?r?k Edwin , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wright , Linus Torvalds Subject: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks) In-Reply-To: <20060417173319.GA11506@infradead.org> Message-ID: References: <200604021240.21290.edwin@gurde.com> <200604072138.35201.edwin@gurde.com> <1144863768.32059.67.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <200604142301.10188.edwin@gurde.com> <1145290013.8542.141.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20060417162345.GA9609@infradead.org> <1145293404.8542.190.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20060417173319.GA11506@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Or, better, remove LSM itself ;) > > Seriously that makes a lot of sense. All other modules people have come up > with over the last years are irrelevant and/or broken by design. It's been nearly a year since I proposed this, and we've not seen any appropriate LSM modules submitted in that time. See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.lsm/1120 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.lsm/1088 The only reason I can see to not delete it immediately is to give BSD secure levels users a heads-up, although I thought it was already slated for removal. BSD secure levels is fundamentally broken and should never have gone into mainline. How about enough time to get us to 2.6.18, say, two months? Signed-off-by: James Morris --- linux-2.6.17-rc1.o/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt 2006-04-15 19:57:53.000000000 -0400 +++ linux-2.6.17-rc1.x/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt 2006-04-17 15:18:15.000000000 -0400 @@ -246,3 +246,27 @@ Why: The interface no longer has any cal Who: Nick Piggin --------------------------- + +What: LSM (Linux Security Modules) including BSD Secure Levels. +When: June 2006 +Why: In the years since LSM was included in the mainline kernel, SELinux + has been the only significant module implemented and also included + in the mainline kernel. So we have a generalized framework for + one user, SELinux, which itself is a generalized framework. + Thus, LSM will be removed, as it adds unecessary infrastructure, + performance overhead and complicates the code. It also attracts + a regular stream of misconceived and broken security module + submissions to mainline, such as BSD Security Levels, and + developers are seeing LSM as the answer to everything rather + than really thinking about what they need and how to architect + the code properly and generally. There is also a growing number + of proprietary modules hooking into LSM in usafe ways, not + necessarily even for security purposes. The LSM interface + semantics are too weak and such an API does not belong in the + mainline kernel. + See also, previous discussions on the issue: + http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.lsm/1120 + http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.lsm/1088 +Who: James Morris + +---------------------------