[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071026183448.GC32415@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:34:48 -0700
From: John Johansen <jjohansen@...e.de>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: jjohansen@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:37:21AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:40:24 -0700
> jjohansen@...e.de wrote:
>
> before going into the LSM / security side of things, I'd like to get
> the VFS guys to look at your VFS interaction code.
>
yes, the vfs interaction definitely need their review.
> In addition, I'd like to ask you to put a file in Documentation/
> somewhere that describes what AppArmor is intended security protection
> is (it's different from SELinux for sure for example); by having such a
> document for each LSM user, end users and distros can make a more
> informed decision which module suits their requirements... and it also
> makes it possible to look at the implementation to see if it has gaps
> to the intent, without getting into a pissing contest about which
> security model is better; but unless the security goals are explicitly
> described that's a trap that will keep coming back... so please spend
> some time on getting a good description going here..
>
yes this is needed and a good idea in general
thanks
john
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists