Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757370AbXKGEfZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:35:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756928AbXKGEet (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:34:49 -0500 Received: from web36614.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.31]:24939 "HELO web36614.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756890AbXKGEeq (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:34:46 -0500 X-YMail-OSG: wD1Bs2oVM1l_ET15AezctdeBOg8Ss2XdEdivZ_06OdqQy9T6ZYX7FX9ipMFoyq7htVE87ay_Vm3h6AH1Uk2OYuBKwKFtgZTbvTkInfcTfhYzp0Ii45o- X-RocketYMMF: rancidfat Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 20:34:45 -0800 (PST) From: Casey Schaufler Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface To: Tetsuo Handa , casey@schaufler-ca.com Cc: crispin@crispincowan.com, simon@fire.lp0.eu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, cliffe@ii.net, oiaohm@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <200711070411.lA74Bdvn041341@www262.sakura.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <538323.91702.qm@web36614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1434 Lines: 39 --- Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Hello. > > Casey Schaufler wrote: > > Fine grained capabilities are a bonus, and there are lots of > > people who think that it would be really nifty if there were a > > separate capability for each "if" in the kernel. I personally > > don't see need for more than about 20. That is a matter of taste. > > DG/UX ended up with 330 and I say that's too many. > > TOMOYO Linux has own (non-POSIX) capability that can support 65536 > capabilities > if there *were* a separate capability for each "if" in the kernel. > http://svn.sourceforge.jp/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/trunk/2.1.x/tomoyo-lsm/patches/tomoyo-capability.diff?root=tomoyo&view=markup > > The reason I don't use POSIX capability is that the maximum types are limited > to > bitwidth of a variable (i.e. currently 32, or are we going to extend it to > 64). > This leads to abuse of CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability. That is a matter of taste. > In other words, it makes fine-grained privilege division impossible. I personally believe that a finer granularity than about 20 is too fine. I understand that this is a minority opinion. 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/