Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:08:10 -0700
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: Sergiy Lozovsky <serge_lozovsky@yahoo.com>
Cc: John Stoffel <stoffel@lucent.com>, Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>,
       Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel stack challenge
Message-ID: <20040405140810.C22989@build.pdx.osdl.net>
References: <16497.48378.82191.330004@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20040405205412.60071.qmail@web40504.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20040405205412.60071.qmail@web40504.mail.yahoo.com>; from serge_lozovsky@yahoo.com on Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 01:54:12PM -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 966
Lines: 23

* Sergiy Lozovsky (serge_lozovsky@yahoo.com) wrote:
> No :-) What you suggest is kernel should receive
> system call from user space. Instead of handling it -
> kernel should forward it back to userspace, than it
> should be forwarded back to the kernel. Looks not very
> nice to me. Why not to handle security policy inside
> the kernel as it is done for the file permissions and
> root priveleges?

All this can be done w/out having a LISP interpretter coming along for the
ride, that's the point of the other posters.  With LSM you have a
framework for implementing your own security model and enforcing your own
policies.

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/