Some LSM and SGX remarks before parting of for two weeks

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:12:23PM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> > Before going to a two week vacation (sending v21 today), I'll make some
> > remarks on SGX and LSM's:
> > 
> > 1. Currently all patch sets proposing LSM changes are missing a problem
> >    statement and describe a solution to an undescribed problem.
> > 2. When speaking of SELinux I haven't seen any draft's on how would
> >    define a policy module with the new constructs. Does not have to
> >    be a full policy modules but more like snippets demosntrating that
> >    "this would work".
> > 3. All the SELinux discussion is centered on type based policies.
> >    Potentially one could isolate enclaves with some UBAC or RBAC
> >    based model. That could be good first step and might not even
> >    require LSM changes.
> 
> Unless I misunderstand what you mean here, RBAC and UBAC in SELinux still 
> require LSM hooks, and are typically integrated with Type Enforcement.

OK, I was thinking something like with normal DAC just to have SGID
for enclaves. Just learning basic SELinux concepts. Still quite alien
world to me.

/Jarkko