Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:47:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:03 -0700 John Johansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > > so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
>> > > differences over the use of pathname-based security?
>> > >
>> > There certainly seems to be some differences of opinion over the use
>> > of pathname-based-security.
>>
>> I was refreshed to have not been cc'ed on a lkml thread for once. I guess
>> it couldn't last.
>>
>> Do you agree with the "irreconcilable" part? I think I do.
>>
>> I suspect that we're at the stage of having to decide between
>>
>> a) set aside the technical issues and grudgingly merge this stuff as a
>> service to Suse and to their users (both of which entities are very
>> important to us) and leave it all as an object lesson in
>> how-not-to-develop-kernel-features.
>>
>> Minimisation of the impact on the rest of the kernel is of course
>> very important here.
>>
>> versus
>>
>> b) leave it out and require that Suse wear the permanent cost and
>> quality impact of maintaining it out-of-tree. It will still be an
>> object lesson in how-not-to-develop-kernel-features.
>>...
>
> versus
>
> c) if [1] AppArmor is considered to be something that wouldn't
> be merged if it wasn't already widely deployed by Suse: leave it out,
> work on an ideal solution [2], and let Suse wear the one-time cost
> of migrating their users to the ideal solution
>
> One important point is that if AppArmor gets merged there will be much
> more distribution support for it, and many people on !Suse will start
> using it.
>
> I'm not claiming to understand the technical details, but from both
> slightly reading over the previous discussions and the "What are the
> advantages of AppArmor over SELinux?" section in the AppArmor FAQ [3] my
> impression is that a main advantage of AppArmor are more user friendly
> userspace tools. Therefore, if [1] AppArmor is considered technically
> inferior to SELinux, it might still become more popular than SELinux
> simply because it's easier to use - and although it's technically
> inferior.
A couple of random thoughts to mix up this discussion.
[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]
