Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/11] security: AppArmor - Core access controls

On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 07:05:08PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Are confined processes always restricted from starting
> non-confined processes?

It is specified in policy via an unconstrained execution flag: 'ux'. Any
unconfined children can of course do whatever they wish.

Attachment: pgpfF8PfeAE6Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/11] security: AppArmor - Core access controls
    • From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
    • From: Tony Jones <[email protected]>
  • [RFC][PATCH 4/11] security: AppArmor - Core access controls
    • From: Tony Jones <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/11] security: AppArmor - Core access controls
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/11] security: AppArmor - Core access controls
    • From: Crispin Cowan <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/11] security: AppArmor - Core access controls
    • From: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
• Next by Date: TOE info page
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/11] security: AppArmor - Core access controls
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/11] security: AppArmor - Core access controls
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]