Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 22:08 +1100, Crispin Cowan wrote: > >> There is a module waiting in the wings called Stacker >> <http://sourceforge.net/projects/lsm-stacker> that is designed to >> automatically stack multiple modules. Considerable design, >> implementation, and measurement has gone into Stacker. The main thing >> stalling the upstreaming of Stacker is for some modules other than >> SELinux to be accepted upstream. With the number of modules vying for >> that, it seems just a matter of time. >> > Except that at the last kernel summit, the topic came up during the LSM > panel, and everyone on the panel, including the AppArmor person, agreed > that stacking wasn't necessary or desirable. > Hmmm, that is surprising. I have to assume you meant " ... at this time." With relatively few modules around, a full blown stacking architecture is excessive. But as the number and variety of modules grows, the need for Stacker will increase. That stacking was given such limited support in the LSM design was precisely because I saw it as a "later" kind of thing, and we could avoid the initial complexity.
Clearly stacking AppArmor and SELinux together is pointless, but if Stacker was upstream, then perhaps the LSPP work going on could be done as a pure LSM module that can stack with something else, so it could compose with SELinux, AppArmor, LIDS, etc. instead of just with SELinux. By now, of course, all sorts of SELinux-specific assumptions are built into the work, but I doubt that they are fundamental. Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/ Director of Software Engineering, Novell http://novell.com Hacking is exploiting the gap between "intent" and "implementation" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
