Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:58:29 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add in_execve flag into task_struct.
Message-ID: <20090106155829.GA9773@us.ibm.com>
References: <200901060514.n065E462074929@www262.sakura.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200901060514.n065E462074929@www262.sakura.ne.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 986
Lines: 24

Quoting Tetsuo Handa (penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp):
> Serge,
> 
> James is now reviewing TOMOYO Linux patch and he is caring about
> your comment below.
> 
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > I don't like the 'in_exec' bit in the task_struct, but adding LSM hooks
> > to let just TOMOYO mark whether you're in exec seems even uglier.
> 
> Let me (once again) ask your comment on 'in_exec' approach
> originally suggested by David Howells ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/2/127 ).

I still don't like it.  Now I gather the reason for this is that you
want to allow a less trusted domain to execute a file (in a new domain)
without giving it the right to read it?  I'd be interested in hearing
whether others think that's a worthy goal.

-serge
--
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/