Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765362AbXJZUnT (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:43:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755930AbXJZUnE (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:43:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:53095 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751075AbXJZUnC (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:43:02 -0400 From: Andreas Gruenbacher Organization: SUSE Labs, Novell To: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:44:56 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: jjohansen@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org References: <20071026064024.243943043@suse.de> <20071026073721.618b4778@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <20071026073721.618b4778@laptopd505.fenrus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200710262244.57147.agruen@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1464 Lines: 29 On Friday 26 October 2007 16:37, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > 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.. Hmm, I agree that it makes sense to give a short overview of each LSM. A description of the AppArmor model and implementation can be found in the directory that John referred to actually. I'm unsure how much of that makes sense under Documentation/ -- what do you think? http://forgeftp.novell.com/apparmor/LKML_Submission-Oct-07/techdoc.pdf I guess actual end user information doesn't belong in the kernel sources; that really seems wrong. Thanks, Andreas - 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/