Not being able to take path names into consideration is a current deficiency of the LSM. Being exported to modules is another deficiency of the current LSM as it seems no serious user of the LSM can exist simply as a kernel module. Not being able to mix code from different projects is also a very serious limitation of the LSM. Currently I don't think we can build a kernel that supports selinux and any other LSM at the same time. Which horribly limits what we can do with the LSM. So it seems clear that if we are aiming at an ideal solution. We first need to enhance the LSM. Then merge in the AppArmor functionality. Doing it all in one patch series looks to overwhelming for a decent code review. That said is anyone interested in making the LSM more like iptables with a generic table based rules structure? That way we could fix the one true LSM problem and concentrate on simpler pieces that give specific bits of interesting functionality. Or at the very least be able to compile in multiple different bits of functionality into the kernel simultaneously. I'm really not familiar with the security issues the LSM addresses but I do know, it encourages huge incompatible mega solutions, and it tends to break when I fix real security problems in the kernel. So at this point I am convinced that the LSM is deficient, has very limited usability, and seems to be a very fragile firewall structure to me. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
