Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2018-09-05 Thread John Johansen
On 09/01/2018 06:04 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2017/10/22 2:17, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>> As one year elapsed since I proposed CaitSith for upstream, I'd like to >>> hear the status again. I looked at >>> http://schd.ws/hosted_files/lss2017/8b/201709-LinuxSecuritySummit-Stacking.pdf >>> . >>> H

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2018-09-01 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2017/10/22 2:17, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> As one year elapsed since I proposed CaitSith for upstream, I'd like to >> hear the status again. I looked at >> http://schd.ws/hosted_files/lss2017/8b/201709-LinuxSecuritySummit-Stacking.pdf >> . >> How is ETA for Security Module Stacking? Is it a hal

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2017-10-21 Thread Casey Schaufler
On 10/21/2017 3:59 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> John Johansen wrote: >>> On 05/20/2017 09:59 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: John Johansen wrote: > On 11/22/2016 10:31 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> Tetsuo Handa wrote: >>> John Johansen wrote: > In order to minimize

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2017-10-21 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Tetsuo Handa wrote: > John Johansen wrote: > > On 05/20/2017 09:59 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > John Johansen wrote: > > >> On 11/22/2016 10:31 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > >>> Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > John Johansen wrote: > > >> In order to minimize the burden of reviewing, this patchset

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2017-05-20 Thread Tetsuo Handa
John Johansen wrote: > On 05/20/2017 09:59 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > John Johansen wrote: > >> On 11/22/2016 10:31 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >>> Tetsuo Handa wrote: > John Johansen wrote: > >> In order to minimize the burden of reviewing, this patchset implements > >> only functional

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2017-05-20 Thread John Johansen
On 05/20/2017 09:59 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > John Johansen wrote: >> On 11/22/2016 10:31 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >>> Tetsuo Handa wrote: John Johansen wrote: >> In order to minimize the burden of reviewing, this patchset implements >> only functionality of checking program execution r

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2017-05-20 Thread Tetsuo Handa
John Johansen wrote: > On 11/22/2016 10:31 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >> John Johansen wrote: > In order to minimize the burden of reviewing, this patchset implements > only functionality of checking program execution requests (i.e. execve() > system call) usin

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2016-11-23 Thread John Johansen
On 11/22/2016 10:31 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> John Johansen wrote: In order to minimize the burden of reviewing, this patchset implements only functionality of checking program execution requests (i.e. execve() system call) using pathnames. I'm planning to add

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2016-11-22 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Tetsuo Handa wrote: > John Johansen wrote: > > > In order to minimize the burden of reviewing, this patchset implements > > > only functionality of checking program execution requests (i.e. execve() > > > system call) using pathnames. I'm planning to add other functionalities > > > after this versi

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2016-10-25 Thread Tetsuo Handa
John Johansen wrote: > On 10/21/2016 05:49 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > CaitSith (acronym for "Characteristic action inspection tool. See if > > this helps.") is an LSM based access control implementation which uses > > action check list (acl) as policy syntax. > > > > << snip >> > > > CaitSith t

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2016-10-24 Thread John Johansen
On 10/21/2016 05:49 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > CaitSith (acronym for "Characteristic action inspection tool. See if > this helps.") is an LSM based access control implementation which uses > action check list (acl) as policy syntax. > << snip >> > CaitSith tries to remove many limitations which e

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2016-10-24 Thread John Johansen
On 10/23/2016 09:44 PM, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >> (1) CaitSith can use both string / numeric arguments (like TOMOYO and >> AppArmor) and security labels (like SELinux and Smack). There is no >> reason that access control implementation must n

Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

2016-10-23 Thread James Morris
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > (1) CaitSith can use both string / numeric arguments (like TOMOYO and > AppArmor) and security labels (like SELinux and Smack). There is no > reason that access control implementation must not use both. > I believe that AppArmor will be ga