| |||||||||||||
Pro LSM stackingPro LSM stackingPosted Jan 7, 2010 15:40 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216)Parent article: Restricting the network I believe LSM stacking *should* be added. Yes, it can be abused, but anything can be abused. It would let people create small special-case LSM modules that could be combined with "big" modules like SELinux.
(Log in to post comments)
Pro LSM stacking Posted Jan 7, 2010 18:40 UTC (Thu) by eparis123 (guest, #59739) [Link] The topic of stacking has been mentioned a lot in the linux-security list in the last two years.
Schaufler has been calling for it for a long time, but I remember some core people (Al viro) mentioning possible performance problems due to the increasing number of pointer dereferences in the kernel hot paths.
Ofcourse no one offered an implementation yet so that benchmarks can be done, but it seems we're getting closer to this point.
|
|||||||||||||