On 6/15/20 10:44 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> (Cc'ing John)
>
> On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 10:33 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 6/15/2020 9:45 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>> On 6/15/20 4:57 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing the patches.
>>>
> +void
On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 16:18 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 6/15/2020 10:44 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > (Cc'ing John)
> >
> > On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 10:33 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> On 6/15/2020 9:45 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >>> On 6/15/20 4:57 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >>>
On 6/15/2020 10:44 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> (Cc'ing John)
>
> On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 10:33 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 6/15/2020 9:45 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>> On 6/15/20 4:57 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing the patches.
>>>
>
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:45 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
wrote:
>
> On 6/15/20 4:57 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > I think I mentioned this on a previous version of these patches, but I
> > would recommend including more than just the enabled and enforcing
> > states in your measurement. Other
(Cc'ing John)
On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 10:33 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 6/15/2020 9:45 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > On 6/15/20 4:57 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing the patches.
> >
> >>> +void security_state_change(char *lsm_name, void
On 6/15/2020 9:45 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 6/15/20 4:57 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patches.
>
>>> +void security_state_change(char *lsm_name, void *state, int state_len)
>>> +{
>>> + ima_lsm_state(lsm_name, state, state_len);
>>> +}
On 6/15/20 4:57 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for reviewing the patches.
+void security_state_change(char *lsm_name, void *state, int state_len)
+{
+ ima_lsm_state(lsm_name, state, state_len);
+}
+
What's the benefit of this trivial function instead of just calling
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:57 AM Stephen Smalley
wrote:
> I think I mentioned this on a previous version of these patches, but I
> would recommend including more than just the enabled and enforcing
> states in your measurement. Other low-hanging fruit would be the
> other selinux_state booleans
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:42 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
wrote:
>
> SELinux needs to implement the interface function, security_state(), for
> the LSM to gather SELinux data for measuring. Define the security_state()
> function in SELinux.
>
> The security modules should be able to notify the LSM
SELinux needs to implement the interface function, security_state(), for
the LSM to gather SELinux data for measuring. Define the security_state()
function in SELinux.
The security modules should be able to notify the LSM when there is
a change in the module's data. Define a function namely
10 matches
Mail list logo
