Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:57:55 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Crispin Cowan <crispin@crispincowan.com>
Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@treblig.org>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       LSM ML <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
       apparmor-dev <apparmor-dev@forge.novell.com>
Subject: Re: AppArmor Security Goal
Message-ID: <20071110225755.5dd9b52b@the-village.bc.nu>
In-Reply-To: <47363381.4030103@crispincowan.com>
References: <473380AD.5070801@crispincowan.com>
	<20071110220455.GB24195@gallifrey>
	<47362C7C.2050202@crispincowan.com>
	<20071110222414.GC24195@gallifrey>
	<47363381.4030103@crispincowan.com>
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 941
Lines: 20

> Can you explain why you want a non-privileged user to be able to edit
> policy? I would like to better understand the problem here.

Because root doesn't trust users who in turn may not trust apps they run
or wish to control things. I don't see a problem with that viewpoint in
terms of forbidding things providing the user (or process tree) does not
get to undo rules merely add more restrictions.

> non-privileged user to further tighten the profile on a program. To me,
> that adds complexity with not much value, but if lots of users want it,
> then I'm wrong :)

Assuming you have any value in the first place, which is another topic, I
can see value for this in all the security models.

-
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/