Hi!
> > The question is: why not just extend SELinux to include AA functionality
> > rather than doing a whole new subsystem.
>
> Because, as hard as it seems for some people to believe,
> not everyone wants Type Enforcement. SELinux is a fine
> implementation of type enforcement, but if you don't want
> what it does it would be silly to require that it be
> used in order to accomplish something else, like name based
> access control.
>
> If the same things made everyone feel "secure" there would be
> no optional security facilities (audit, cryptfs, /dev/random, ACLs).
> It appears that the AA folks are sufficiently unimpressed with
> SELinux they want to do something different. I understand that
Actually, no. AA was started at time when SELinux was very different
from today, and now AA people have installed base of 'happy users'
they are trying to support.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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]
