Quoting James Morris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > It's useful for some LSMs to be modular, and LSMs which are y/n options > > won't > > have any security architecture issues with unloading at all. > > Which LSMs? Upstream, there are SELinux and capabilty, and they're not > safe as loadable modules. > > > The mere fact > > that SELinux cannot be built as a module is a rather weak argument for > > disabling LSM modules as a whole, so please don't. > > That's not the argument. Please review the thread.
The argument is 'abuse', right? Abuse is defined as using the LSM hooks for non-security applications, right? It seems to me that the community is doing a good job of discouraging such abuse - by redirecting the "wrong-doers" to implement proper upstream solutions, i.e. taskstats, the audit subsystem, etc. Such encouragement seems a far better response than taking away freedoms and flexibility from everyone. -serge - 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/
