| 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: 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