Re: eradicating out of tree modules

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Simon Arlott
Date: Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 7:59 am

On 28/10/07 14:37, Stefan Richter wrote:

Stacking modules makes a lot of sense, it may be tricky to order sensibly, 
now if you want the features of more than one LSM (including those being 
added to the kernel), you need to *copy* the parts you want. Since you 
can't use modules to load them, because that feature's been removed, you 
need to maintain your own kernel tree for it or submit your changes which 
will eventually end up with LSMs that all do the same thing...

This static LSM doesn't even make sense to me - what happens if I select 
both SECURITY_CAPABILITIES and SECURITY_ROOTPLUG? I can't easily check 
because I'm using 2.6.23 - so I can still reload my module while changing 
it to have a better configuration interface. Kconfig doesn't look like it 
will prevent it. Surely the options should be a multiple choice menu?


Adrian's mentioned people eager to write drivers - LSMs aren't drivers, 
there's really nothing to work from except "security module that does X" 
and for that people should develop what they want themselves.

There's no reason for out of tree *GPL* drivers to not exist, is there?
How much of the non-driver code that gets merged into the kernel exists 
first as out of tree modules, rather than direct patches to the tree 
itself? It was made much easier since 2.4 to compile a module out of tree 
using a simple Makefile. (Perhaps that should be removed too?)

-- 
Simon Arlott
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Linus Torvalds, (Wed Oct 17, 7:18 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Andreas Gruenbacher, (Fri Oct 19, 1:26 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Oct 19, 1:40 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, James Morris, (Fri Oct 19, 2:07 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Sat Oct 20, 4:05 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, James Morris, (Sat Oct 20, 3:57 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Adrian Bunk, (Sun Oct 21, 3:59 pm)
Re: Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Crispin Cowan, (Sun Oct 21, 6:12 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Arjan van de Ven, (Mon Oct 22, 9:09 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], James Morris, (Mon Oct 22, 9:56 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Arjan van de Ven, (Mon Oct 22, 9:57 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Chris Wright, (Mon Oct 22, 10:16 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Giacomo Catenazzi, (Mon Oct 22, 10:44 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 1:55 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 2:10 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Chris Wright, (Tue Oct 23, 2:13 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 2:13 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 2:14 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Giacomo A. Catenazzi, (Tue Oct 23, 2:14 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 2:18 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Serge E. Hallyn, (Tue Oct 23, 8:20 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 8:28 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Serge E. Hallyn, (Tue Oct 23, 8:34 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 23, 5:31 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Chris Wright, (Tue Oct 23, 5:32 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Arjan van de Ven, (Tue Oct 23, 10:06 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion ..., Bernd Petrovitsch, (Thu Oct 25, 2:19 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Valdis.Kletnieks, (Thu Oct 25, 3:23 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion ..., Arjan van de Ven, (Thu Oct 25, 10:10 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Stefan Richter, (Sat Oct 27, 10:31 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Stefan Richter, (Sun Oct 28, 2:25 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 5:01 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Stefan Richter, (Sun Oct 28, 7:37 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Simon Arlott, (Sun Oct 28, 7:59 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 9:55 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 11:51 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Adrian Bunk, (Sun Oct 28, 12:25 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 12:42 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework, Jan Engelhardt, (Sun Oct 28, 1:46 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion ..., Arjan van de Ven, (Sun Oct 28, 10:12 pm)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Mon Oct 29, 5:29 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion ..., Bernd Petrovitsch, (Tue Oct 30, 2:41 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Tue Oct 30, 6:11 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Xavier Bestel, (Tue Oct 30, 6:19 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Greg KH, (Tue Oct 30, 8:30 am)