Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764064AbXJZSdy (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:33:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756441AbXJZSdo (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:33:44 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35825 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757393AbXJZSdm (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:33:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:34:48 -0700 From: John Johansen To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: jjohansen@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview Message-ID: <20071026183448.GC32415@suse.de> References: <20071026064024.243943043@suse.de> <20071026073721.618b4778@laptopd505.fenrus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NKoe5XOeduwbEQHU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071026073721.618b4778@laptopd505.fenrus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1759 Lines: 49 --NKoe5XOeduwbEQHU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:37:21AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:40:24 -0700 > jjohansen@suse.de wrote: >=20 > before going into the LSM / security side of things, I'd like to get > the VFS guys to look at your VFS interaction code. >=20 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.. >=20 yes this is needed and a good idea in general thanks john --NKoe5XOeduwbEQHU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHIjNIi/GH5xuqKCcRAoKHAJ4ug09vREnC66L+OaRyNTzwiIFxAQCgiR3m wPURivqzkNQihMZoUL6FoyA= =XufD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NKoe5XOeduwbEQHU-- - 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/