|From:||"Thomas Fricaccia" <thomas_fricacci-AT-yahoo.com>|
|To:||"Crispin Cowan" <crispin-AT-crispincowan.com>|
|Subject:||Re: LSM conversion to static interface|
|Date:||Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:24:42 -0700|
|Cc:||linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, "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. Tommy F. Crispin Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 > > -- > Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/ > Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work
Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds