On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 14:43 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 April 2006 14:42, James Carter wrote:
>
> > I talk to one of the unconfined people at the table and ask them to
> > rename the "knife" to "spoon". Now I am free to do what I wish.
>
> That assumes that your jail allows talking to other people.
AppArmor doesn't control IPC (which has been noted previously), and it
isn't clear how one generalizes its path-based scheme to handle all
kinds of kernel operations. So it isn't even a very good jail-like
mechanism. Which brings up an interesting topic of its own: If you
want the AppArmor model, then why not just use existing jail-like or
virtualization mechanisms? IIUC, Vservers and OpenVZ are already far
more complete in their coverage than AppArmor and leverage existing
kernel mechanisms like namespaces that at least have well-defined
semantics. I expect that I could achieve a much higher degree of
confidence in such a mechanism than in AppArmor. Why can't AppArmor
just become a userspace tool for configuring namespaces and setting up
the environment in which the application runs?
> > You don't care about the name "knife", you care about the object it
> > represents.
>
> In the apparmor model you only care about what the application is allowed
> to do. If it does anything extraordinary like trying to talk to people it
> shouldn't talk to it gets a veto.
Again, it doesn't control IPC.
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
-
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]
