Quoting Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:06:44AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:57:31PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > We are not living in a world where everyone had good intentions... > > > > Oh no, i took a wrong turn somewhere :) > > > > > For _some_ "wrong-doers" your approach works. > > > > > > But how do you convince the "wrong-doers" who do things like putting > > > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") into their binary-only modules and who ignore you > > > and get away because noone sues them? > > > > Do these really exist? Maybe noone sues them because noone knows who > > they are... > > http://lwn.net/Articles/82306/
LinuxAnt? Are they using LSM? It looks to me like this patch will do nothing about them. > > But - note that you've changed completely the meaning of 'abuse'. > > So mine was wrong? > > Technical and legal abuse are related. True but going by your logic we could remove support for modules period to prevent legal abuse by non-gpl modules. > For GPL'ed modules you might assume good faith and get the authors to do > things in a proper way. Authors of legally questionable modules that > cheat in many ways are quite a different issue. > > > > The spirit of the GPLv2 is to defend the freedom of the software > > > (different from the spirit of the BSD licence), and considering that > > > there aren't many people defending the GPLv2 copyright of the Linux > > > kernel at court against abusers, making it harder for people to do the > > > abuse might not be the worst choice... > > > > Well, but you seem to be saying that the license means squat, and > > resorting to making things inconvenient rather than illegal. > > No, the point is that there's no reason for making illegal things > convenient. But no, the point is that that you are making legal things very inconvenient. > I'm not talking about removing things that are used inside the kernel, Since capabilities can currently be compiled as a module, you are. (Though that sounds weird, so maybe I'm misreading what you are saying) > but what you call "freedom" can also be called "hooks for possible abuse". Yup, that is true. > Additionally, it both makes the kernel bigger for everyone and requires > proper handling of loading/unloading in the security architecture. > > > Now I guess if it really is accepted that that's the way it should be, > > then this patch will go in. > > > > -serge > > cu > Adrian thanks, -serge - 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