On Friday 25 May 2007 21:06, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> --- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ...
> > Well, my point was exactly that App Armor doesn't (as far as I know) do
> > anything to enforce the argv[0] convention,
>
> Sounds like an opportunity for improvement then.
Jeez, what argv[0] convention are you both talking about? argv[0] is not
guaranteed to have any association with the name of the executable. Feel free
to have any discussion about argv[0] you want, but *please* keep it away from
AppArmor, which really has nothing to do with it.
It would be nice if you could stop calling argv[0] checks ``name-based access
control'': from the point of view of the kernel no access control is
involved, and even application-level argv[0] based access control makes no
sense whatsoever.
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]
