James Morris wrote:
>The point is that the pathname model does not generalize, and that
>AppArmor's inability to provide adequate coverage of the system is a
>design issue arising from this.
I don't see it. I don't see why you call this a design issue. Isn't
this just a case where they haven't gotten around to implementing
network and IPC mediation yet? How is that a design issue arising
from a pathname-based model? For instance, one system I built (Janus)
provided complete mediation, including mediation of network and IPC,
yet it too used a pathname model for its policy file when describing
the policy for the filesystem. That seems to contradict your statement.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
