[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <p73abx66fme.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Date: 17 Apr 2007 20:05:29 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Karl MacMillan <kmacmill@...hat.com>
Cc: David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
John Johansen <jjohansen@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AppArmor FAQ
Karl MacMillan <kmacmill@...hat.com> writes:
> No - the real fix is to change the applications or to run under a policy
> that confines all applications. Most of the problems with resolv.conf,
> mtab, etc. stem from admin processes (e.g., editors or shell scripts)
> all running under the same unconfined domain.
>
> In some cases applications need modification as only the application has
> enough information to determine the correct label. Usually this means
> preserving labels from input files or separating the output into
> distinct directories so type transitions or label inheritance will work.
>
> restorecond is just a hack not a requirement or a sign that something is
> wrong with the model. That is why it is a userspace application and not
> integrated into the kernel mechanism.
You nicely show one of the major disadvantages of the label model vs the path
model here: it requires modification of a lot of applications.
Maybe John can borrow your statement for new versions of his FAQ @)
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists