William Lee Irwin III wrote: > William Lee Irwin III wrote: >>> I presumed an ELF note or extended filesystem attributes were already >>> in place for this sort of affair. It may be that the model implemented >>> is so restrictive that users are forbidden to create new executables, >>> in which case using a different model is certainly in order. Otherwise >>> the ELF note or attributes need to be implemented. > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 09:37:31AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Another thing to keep in mind, since we're talking about security >> policies in the first place, is that anything like this *MUST* be >> "opt-in" on the part of the security policy, because what we're talking >> about is circumventing an explicit security policy just based on a >> user-provided binary saying, in effect, "don't worry, I know what I'm >> doing." >> Changing the meaning of an established explicit security policy is not >> acceptable. > > This is what I had in mind with the commentary on the intentions of the > policy. Thank you for correcting my hamhanded attempt to describe it. >
Right. It's important to notice that it's actually more of an issue if the user can create executables, but the policy doesn't want to allow them to run bypassing the policy. -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/