Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

Casey Schaufler wrote:
> I respect the design decisions that SELinux has made regarding
> granularity without agreeing with them myself. 
>   
It isn't even an exclusive decision: both design points can be "right",
but aimed at different use cases. Which is why LSM exists, so users can
decide on an appropriate mechanism.

Crispin

-- 
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.               http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/
Director of Software Engineering   http://novell.com
	AppArmor Chat: irc.oftc.net/#apparmor

-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel
    • From: Casey Schaufler <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Re: cciss: warning: right shift count >= width of type
• Next by Date: Re: [1/1] Block device throttling [Re: Distributed storage.]
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]