|From:||Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org>|
|To:||James Morris <jmorris-AT-namei.org>|
|Subject:||Re: Preview of changes to the Security susbystem for 2.6.36|
|Date:||Mon, 2 Aug 2010 08:24:21 -0400|
|Cc:||linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org>, Al Viro <viro-AT-ftp.linux.org.uk>, Kees Cook <kees.cook-AT-canonical.com>|
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:18:46PM +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, James Morris wrote: > > > One issue which needs to be addressed is to confirm that there is > > consensus on the new Yama LSM module. I had thought there was, based on > > list discussion, but have since had differing feedback. > > I'm going to revert the Yama stuff for 2.6.36 -- Christoph has nacked it > to me off-list. I'm also happy to do it on-list, but I really didn't want to do it before I've actually validated the patches in your tree still are the same that were objected before. As mentioned a few times during the past discussion moving broken code into a LSM doesn't magically fix it. In fact YAMA is not any kind of (semi-)coherent security policy like Selinux, smack or similar but just a random set of hacks that you didn't get past the subsystem maintainers. Al gave you some very clear advice how a the sticky check should be done for symlinks (if we need it at all, which I tend to disagree with), and the ptrace check completely breaks crash handlers that we have in all kinds of applications. If you can get it into the main ptrace code past Roland and Oleg that's fine, but just pushing it out into a tree that has percieved easier merge criteria doesn't work.
Copyright © 2010, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds