> I submit that the AppArmor model is valid, even if it totally failed all
> of David Gilbert's questions (I think AppArmor can actually provide
> about half of what he asked for).
The model looks valid. I have difficulty constructing many scenarios
where its useful but it appears valid providing you can tightly control
file renaming, which is very very questionable.
There are also some very awkward path based issues around shared file
objects (your controlling tty and TIOCSTI for one) that I need to look at
the code for once the VFS stuff is sorted and its likely to get merged.
Alan
-
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]
