Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759494AbXFVReD (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:34:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754563AbXFVRdv (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:33:51 -0400 Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]:63975 "EHLO agminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753697AbXFVRdu (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:33:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:30:56 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: James Morris Cc: Stephen Smalley , Lars Marowsky-Bree , Pavel Machek , Crispin Cowan , Greg KH , Andreas Gruenbacher , jjohansen@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching Message-ID: <20070622173056.GA873@think.oraclecorp.com> References: <20070621192407.GF20105@marowsky-bree.de> <20070621195400.GK20105@marowsky-bree.de> <1182459594.20464.16.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20070622003436.GB6222@think.oraclecorp.com> <20070622121742.GC6222@think.oraclecorp.com> <20070622140240.GM6222@think.oraclecorp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2091 Lines: 50 On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:23:03AM -0400, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Chris Mason wrote: > > > But, this is a completely different discussion than if AA is > > solving problems in the wild for its intended audience, or if the code > > is somehow flawed and breaking other parts of the kernel. > > Is its intended audience aware of its limitiations? Lars has just > acknowledged that it does not implement mandatory access control, for one. > > Until people understand these issues, they certainly need to be addressed > in the context of upstream merge. It is definitely useful to clearly understand the intended AA use cases during the merge. > > > We've been over the "AA is different" discussion in threads about a > > billion times, and at the last kernel summit. > > I don't believe that people at the summit were adequately informed on the > issue, and from several accounts I've heard, Stephen Smalley was > effectively cut off before he could even get to his second slide. I'm sure people there will have a different versions of events. The one part that was discussed was if pathname based security was useful, and a number of the people in the room (outside of novell) said it was. Now, it could be that nobody wanted to argue anymore, since most opinions had come out on one list or another by then. But as someone who doesn't use either SElinux or AA, I really hope we can get past the part of the debate where: while(1) AA) we think we're making users happy with pathname security SELINUX) pathname security sucks So, yes Greg got it started and Lars is a well known trouble maker, and I completely understand if you want to say no thank you to an selinux based AA ;) The models are different and it shouldn't be a requirement that they try to use the same underlying mechanisms. -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/