On Friday 25 May 2007 19:43, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> [...] but the AppArmor code could certainly check for that in exec by
> enforcing the argv[0] convention. It would be perfectly reasonable for a
> system that is so dependent on pathnames to require that.
Hmm ... that's a strange idea. AppArmor cannot assume anything about argv[0],
and it would be a really bad idea to change the well-established semantics of
argv[0].
There is no actual need for looking at argv[0], though: AppArmor decides based
on the actual pathname of the executable...
Thanks,
Andreas
-
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]
