Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
       Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Cc: casey@schaufler-ca.com, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
In-Reply-To: <m1ir5liaoh.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <54877.16343.qm@web36603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 978
Lines: 25


--- "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:


> Likely.  Until we have a generalized LSM interface with 1000 config
> options like netfilter I don't expect we will have grounds to talk
> or agree to a common user space interface.  Although I could be
> wrong.

Gulp. I know that many of you are granularity advocates, but I
have to say that security derived by tweeking 1000 knobs so that
they are all just right seems a little far fetched to me. I see
it as poopooing the 3rd and most important part of the reference
monitor concept, "small enough to analyze". Sure, you can analyse
the 1000 individual checks, but you'll never be able to describe
the system behavior as a whole.


Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
-
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/