Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757932AbXJZUTM (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:19:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751803AbXJZUS7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:18:59 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:60139 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751765AbXJZUS6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:18:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:15:10 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven To: John Johansen 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: <20071026131510.52955c54@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <20071026183448.GC32415@suse.de> References: <20071026064024.243943043@suse.de> <20071026073721.618b4778@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20071026183448.GC32415@suse.de> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1588 Lines: 35 On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:34:48 -0700 John Johansen wrote: > 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: > > > > 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 > would you mind posting your first stab at this to the list shortly, because without that it's nearly impossible to review your patchkit in a sensible way... - 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/