[Security_sig] [Reminder] Security SIG conf. call - 1/20

Gé Weijers Ge.Weijers at Sun.COM
Mon Jan 24 12:47:48 PST 2005


Wichmann, Mats D wrote:

>>SEC 1.0:
>>
>>There is mention of SuSv3, shouldn't we talk about LSB too?
>>    
>>
>
>I find the wording of this chunk very odd for a spec:
>
>"Description: OSDL CGL specifies that carrier grade Linux shall provide access control
>mechanisms that support support beyond the mechanisms commonly supported on Posix/SUSv2/SUSv3
>compliant systems."
>  
>
Mats, I agree with you that this needs changing. Hoe does:

"....beyond the Discretionary access control required by 
Posix.1/SUSv2/SUSv3/LSB"

sound?

>
>The topic of POSIX-draft ACLs (as mentioned in 1.4) keeps coming up as a topic
>for addition to POSIX/SUS in the Austin Group, which maintains those
>standards (and if that begins to look acceptable there, that would be one
>way to get them into LSB as well).  The difficulty in that forum is the 
>common-practice requirement, since there really isn't uniformity across
>implementations it never seems to go anywhere (in particular, I think
>I've heard HP/UX's implementation of acls is incompatible with the POSIX
>draft).
>  
>
The common-practice requirement cannot resolve these issues. Pre-POSIX 
terminal/serial I/O had similar issues, the System-V implementation was 
quite different from the BSD one. It was resolved then by defining a new 
interface.

>I'm kind of uncomfortable with a requirement that says that CG Linux
>systems have to provide ACLs, but there's no requirement that they work
>a particular way.  Doesn't that leave a rather muddled picture for
>customer expectations?
>  
>
It would be tragic if there would be multiple Linux implementations. I 
suggest that this issue should be put on the roadmap, and that we modify 
the definition to reflect whatever crystalizes out in the future.

If we can avoid it we should not try to reinvent the wheel. Someone 
involved in the TrustedBSD project is trying to gain access to specs for 
the Solaris system call auditing stuff for the same reason.

An issue for the F2F.

Ge'


-- 
Gé Weijers                          mailto:ge.weijers at sun.com
Linux Software Engineering          Direct/Fax: (877)240-7611
Sun Microsystems, Inc.              x69536 (Sun)
=== Expressed opinions are my own, I do not speak for Sun ===




More information about the security_sig mailing list