On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:37:21AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:40:24 -0700 > [email protected] wrote: > > before going into the LSM / security side of things, I'd like to get > the VFS guys to look at your VFS interaction code. > yes, the vfs interaction definitely need their review. > In addition, I'd like to ask you to put a file in Documentation/ > somewhere that describes what AppArmor is intended security protection > is (it's different from SELinux for sure for example); by having such a > document for each LSM user, end users and distros can make a more > informed decision which module suits their requirements... and it also > makes it possible to look at the implementation to see if it has gaps > to the intent, without getting into a pissing contest about which > security model is better; but unless the security goals are explicitly > described that's a trap that will keep coming back... so please spend > some time on getting a good description going here.. > yes this is needed and a good idea in general thanks john
Attachment:
pgp6UUCx9PAWc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [2.624-rc1 regression] lost battery information
- Next by Date: [PATCH] Parallel port: Convert port_mutex to the mutex API
- Previous by thread: Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview
- Next by thread: Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview
- Index(es):