|| ||"Thomas Fricaccia" <thomas_fricacci-AT-yahoo.com>|
|| ||"Crispin Cowan" <crispin-AT-crispincowan.com>|
|| ||Re: LSM conversion to static interface|
|| ||Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:24:42 -0700|
"LSM ML" <linux-security-module-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
Yes, I think Crispin has succinctly summed it up: irrevocably closing
the LSM prevents commercial customers from using security modules other
than that provided by their Linux distributor. As Sarbanes-Oxley and
other regulatory laws require these customers to use "standard
kernels", the result is a rather dreary form of vendor lock-in, where the
security framework is coupled to the distribution.
Though it would require a somewhat undesirable complexity of CONFIG_
flags, it should be possible to construct flexibility enough for everyone
to get what he wants. For example, it should be possible to configure
kernels with a single security framework hard-linked, AND it should
also be possible to configure kernels such that the default security
framework could be completely replaced at boot time by another, be it
out-of-tree module, or other.
I agree entirely that preserving this form of freedom for the end user
makes Linux a much stronger technology than not. For one thing, the
consequences of closing LSM are fairly certain to irritate enterprise
commercial customers, which is probably a sign that the technology has
taken a wrong turn.
Crispin Cowan <email@example.com> wrote:
> So the net impact of this patch is:
> * It takes a deployment practice (static compiled-in security) that
> is arguably good in many circumstances and makes it mandatory at
> all times.
> * It takes a development practice that is very convenient and
> slightly risky, and forces you into the pessimal inconvenient
> development practice at all times.
> * It prevents enterprise users, and in fact anyone who isn't
> comfortable compiling their own kernel, from ever trying out any
> security module that their distro vendor of choice did not ship.
> This strikes me as a rather anti-choice position to take. It says that
> because candy is bad for you, you only ever get to eat vegetables. I
> don't understand why Linux would want to do this to its users.
> It doesn't hurt me or AppArmor. Since AppArmor is now shipping with
> SUSE, Ubuntu, and Mandriva, what this does is make it harder for newer
> modules like TOMOYO, Multi-Admin, etc, to get exposure to enterprise
> users. So I don't think I am being self-serving in arguing against this
> patch. I just think it is bad for Linux.
> Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/
> Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work
to post comments)