[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071026152321.61e12041@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:23:21 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Crispin Cowan <crispin@...spincowan.com>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>, 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, 26 Oct 2007 15:16:53 -0700
Crispin Cowan <crispin@...spincowan.com> wrote:
>
> > On the first part (discussion of the model) I doubt we can get
> > people to agree, that's pretty much phylosophical... on the second
> > part (how well the code/design lives up to its own goals) the
> > analysis can be objective and technical.
> >
> I will try to do that as soon as possible. While I will strive to be
> both clear and precise, achieving both is challenging. So, if someone
> discovers a mis-match between the description and the code, would a
> patch to the description be an acceptable resolution, if it did not
> render the model silly?
>
I think it's entirely reasonable that if it turns out that the code
can't do a certain aspect of the envisioned security (eg not just a
code bug but a design level issue), the answer is to adjust the
vision...
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
-
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