| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:09:08 -0700 From: "Jeff Schroeder" <jeffschroed@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: [AppArmor 00/41] AppArmor security module overview From: David Wagner <daw <at> cs.berkeley.edu> Subject: > David Wagner wrote: ...snip... >> I still think that ptrace() is not the best way to implement this kind >> of security tool, and I think it's entirely understandable that they did >> not use ptrace. I do not think it is a fair criticism of AppArmor to say >> "AppArmor should have used ptrace()". Take a look at utrace in -mm, it offers a completely backwards compatible ptrace() syscall implemented as a module ontop of it. utrace looks like the way things will be going forward http://people.redhat.com/roland/utrace/2.6-current/0-intro.txt Think of ptrace() implemented using utrace as ptrace that "Sucks Less TM". Maybe Andy will let utrace out of -mm for 2.6.23. (please cc: me in any responses) -- Jeff Schroeder Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix. - 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