On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 09:36 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 08:39:08PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 18:55 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > Adding an IMA call to directly appraise the integrity of a file, rather > > than adding a hook, prevents other integrity users from being able to > > define a rule at that point. > > We already have security hooks in exec() code and mmap(). And current > integrity callers are happy with it.
Exposing integrity calls, resolves the problem of code duplication, but does not address Rusty's third issue of improving the integrity subsystem. You have no idea if the existing integrity users are happy with the status quo. It's there and they're using it. They could want additional hooks or better located hooks. Each of your complaints about the integrity subsystem could be addressed and would improve the subsystem. thanks, Mimi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
