Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765059AbXJFTK0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:10:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764123AbXJFTKM (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:10:12 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:41011 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763867AbXJFTKK (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:10:10 -0400 Message-ID: <4707DE96.4090400@tmr.com> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:14:30 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kyle Moffett CC: "Eric W. Biederman" , Linus Torvalds , Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Andrew Morton , casey@schaufler-ca.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel References: <46FEEBD4.5050401@schaufler-ca.com> <20070930011618.ccb8351b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1191253239.7672.76.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <4702B1D5.5050502@tmr.com> <4703126D.70703@tmr.com> <15E46546-914A-4A1E-BB0B-642FDA17396B@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <15E46546-914A-4A1E-BB0B-642FDA17396B@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1245 Lines: 25 Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Oct 04, 2007, at 21:44:02, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> What we want from the LSM is the ability to say -EPERM when we can >> clearly articulate that we want to disallow something. > > This sort of depends on perspective; typically with security > infrastructure you actually want "... the ability to return success when > we can clearly articulate that we want to *ALLOW* something". File > permissions work this way; we don't have a list of forbidden users > attached to each file, we have an owner, a group, and a mode > representing positive permissions. With that said in certain high-risk > environments you need something even stronger that cannot be changed by > the "owner" of the file, if we don't entirely trust them, > Other than ACLs, of course, which do allow blacklisting individual users. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - 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/