Hi!
> I've heard four arguments against merging AA.
>
> Argument 1. SELinux does it better than AA. (Or: SELinux dominates AA.
> Or: SELinux can do everything that AA can.)
>
> Argument 2. Object labeling (or: information flow control) is more secure
> than pathname-based access control.
>
> Argument 3. AA isn't complete until it mediates network and IPC.
>
> Argument 4. AA doesn't have buy-in from VFS maintainers.
...
> 1. I think this is a bogus argument for rejecting AA. As I remember it,
...
> 3. This one I agree with. If you want to sandbox network daemons that
> 4. Way over my head. I'm not qualified to comment on this aspect.
> I suspect this is the argument that ought to be getting the most serious
> and thorough discussion, not the irrelevant SELinux-vs-AA faceoff.
I believe situation is 'vfs maintainers seriously dislike AA', but if
they were given good enough reasons -- like 'selinux is broken crap
that does not really work', we probably could twist their arms or
something.
So question is not 'is AA better then SELinux' but 'is AA so much
better than SELinux that we want to overrule vfs maintainers'.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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]
