linux-kernel - Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	crispin@...ell.com
Cc:	seanlkml@...patico.ca, bunk@...sta.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	jjohansen@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview

From: Crispin Cowan <crispin@...ell.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:46:57 -0700

> But we do not want to prevent other people from using SELinux if it
> suits them. Linux is about choice, and that is especially vital in
> security. As Linus himself observed when LSM was started, there are a
> lot of security models, they have various strengths and weaknesses, and
> often are not compatible with each other. That is why it is important
> that LSM persist, that SELinux not be the only in-tree user of LSM, and
> why we think AppArmor should be included upstream, so that non-SUSE
> users can also use AppArmor if it suits them.

Anyone can apply the apparmour patch to their tree, they get the
choice that way.  Nobody is currently prevented from using apparmour
if they want to, any such suggestion is pure rubbish.

It is even more incredulious to imply that just by having apparmour
in the upstream kernel all the userland bits will magically appear
on every user's distribution.

Give me a break.

What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that
it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't
personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping
apparmour working with upstream largely off of your back and in the
hands of the upstream community.

Neither of those are reasons why something should go into the tree.

Frankly I think AppArmour is a joke, and all of this integration with
LSM business is just a face saving effort, nothing more.  And saving
face is not, and has never been, a reason for something to be put into
the upstream tree.

-
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/