On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:08 AM, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015, Luke Leighton wrote:
>> whilst the majority of people view management to be "hierarchical" >> (so there is a top dog or God process and everything trickles down >> from that), this is viewed as such an anathema in the security >> industry that someone came up with a formal specification for the >> real-world way in which permissions are managed, sorry i should have said "managed in the security esp. defense industry" >> and it's called the FLASK model. > > > On this topic it's also worth reading Neil Brown's series of articles on > this over at http://lwn.net/Articles/604609/ oo good background, thank you david. happily reading now :) > and why he concludes that having a single hierarchy for all resource types. i think.... having a single hierarchy is fine *if* and only if it is possible to overlay something similar to SE/Linux policy files - enforced by the kernel *not* by userspace (sorry serge!) - such that through those policy files any type of hierarchy be it single or multi layer, recursive or in fact absolutely anything, may be emulated and properly enforced. l. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/