Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764791AbXJZW1W (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:27:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755640AbXJZW1P (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:27:15 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:46239 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755215AbXJZW1O (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:27:14 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:23:21 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Crispin Cowan Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher , 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: <20071026152321.61e12041@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <47226755.8090106@crispincowan.com> References: <20071026064024.243943043@suse.de> <20071026073721.618b4778@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <200710262244.57147.agruen@suse.de> <20071026141358.38342c0f@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <47226755.8090106@crispincowan.com> 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: 1272 Lines: 31 On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:16:53 -0700 Crispin Cowan wrote: > > > On the first part (discussion of the model) I doubt we can get > > people to agree, that's pretty much phylosophical... on the second > > part (how well the code/design lives up to its own goals) the > > analysis can be objective and technical. > > > I will try to do that as soon as possible. While I will strive to be > both clear and precise, achieving both is challenging. So, if someone > discovers a mis-match between the description and the code, would a > patch to the description be an acceptable resolution, if it did not > render the model silly? > I think it's entirely reasonable that if it turns out that the code can't do a certain aspect of the envisioned security (eg not just a code bug but a design level issue), the answer is to adjust the vision... -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org - 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/