On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:15:30AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > 3/ Is AppArmour's approach of using d_path to get a filename from a > dentry valid and acceptable? Clear no, and that should have been obvious to the aa people from the beginning. To make a path-based approach actually work as designed you need to hook up higher, where the real path is available. > If not, how can it get a path? Can > suitable hooks be provided so that AppArmor can get a path in an > acceptable way at the times when that is meaningful? I think that's up to the aa people to find out. - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- From: Stephen Smalley <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- From: Stephen Smalley <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- From: Neil Brown <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- From: Stephen Smalley <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- From: Neil Brown <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- From: Stephen Smalley <[email protected]>
- Some Concrete AppArmor Questions - was Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- From: Neil Brown <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- Prev by Date: When CONFIG_BASE_SAMLL=1, the kernel 2.6.16.11 (cascade() in kernel/timer.c) may enter the infinite loop.
- Next by Date: Re: Simple header cleanups
- Previous by thread: Re: Some Concrete AppArmor Questions - was Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- Next by thread: Re: Some Concrete AppArmor Questions - was Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview
- Index(es):
 |