On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 03:17:08PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> Exactly. Hence the NAK. > But Having two LSM Hooks there is really not practical! It'd doable *if* it turns out that it's the right solution. But revoke seems much more likely to be simple, comprehensible, and obviously correct to me. --Andy > > Note to mention some of these redundancy checks... > >> > >> > Is there some mechanism to check what you describe? >> > >> >> No. You could try to add one, but getting it to be compatible with >> YAMA might be really messy. > LSM is limitted in this situation, and it can't work with YAMA, or > perhaps YAMA will just return -EPERM > > So this LSM protections are currently vulnerable too! > > >> Or you could see if destroying and recreating all the inodes on exec >> or some other revoke-like approach would work. >> >> --Andy > > -- > Djalal Harouni > http://opendz.org -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- 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
