[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <342112.80881.qm@web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org, paul.moore@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 4 (2.6.23-rc8-mm2) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel
--- Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > Absolute paths in that kind of thing are _wrong_. You know where the
> things
> > are on your fs. You don't know if anything else will be visible, let alone
> > whether it will be at the same place in all chroots or namespaces. And no,
> > you _can't_ make sure that fs is visible only in one place. No fs can or
> > has any business even trying.
>
> What I don't understand here is why we need the hacks when we already
> support sufficient mount magic to give each login session its own
> private /tmp ?
An embedded system that does not have user logins but that does
have applications that require separation, perhaps a moble communication
device with application download capability, is just one example
where the smack symlink implementation provides the required
function without requiring application support.
Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
-
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