--- Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I get that a lot.
> 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...
Right. My point was that if you wanted to use the gzip/gunzip
example of a file with two names being treated differently based
on the name accessed as an argument for AppArmor you could. If
you don't want to, that's ok too. Jeremy raised a reasonable objection,
and AppArmor could address it if y'all chose to do so. I seriously
doubt that enforcing the argv[0] convention would break much, and I
also expect that if it did there's a Consultant's Retirement to be
made fixing the security hole it points out.
Casey Schaufler
[email protected]
-
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]
