[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: secmodel_register(9) API
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:22:33PM +0100, Christoph Badura wrote:
> The typical example is that the kernel wants to ask the secmodels: "are
> these credentials authorized to perform the action detailled in the
> remaining argument?".
> And if the securelevel secmodel is loaded that sometimes says "yay" or
> "nay" for the cases that it is interested in.
> In other words, you are asking the wrong questions and thinking about
> this in an incorrect way. Therefore you end up at incorrect solutions.
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:58:20PM +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:13:01 +0000 (UTC), yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost
> > wrote:
> > Consider user_set_cpu_affinity: if the sysctl cannot be set any more
> > when securelevel is above or below a threshold, checking for the
> > securelevel variable means that this sysctl has a strong dependency
> > on securelevel (or else, it won't be able to get the variable). So
> > if you want to still provide this sysctl but without having
> > securelevel loaded, you are screwed: it's part of this module.
> There is no need for the code that manages user_set_cpu_affinity to have
> a dependency on the securelevel variable. Or even to know about it in the
> first place.
> All that is need is a call to kauth_authorize_action asking if it is
> allowed to modify the variable bound to the sysctl name.
Yes. I hadn't looked at this carefully enough before -- my own fault.
The new abstraction is, effectively, backwards.
Main Index |
Thread Index |