linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/12] AppArmor: userspace interfaces

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 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:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:44:27 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] AppArmor: userspace interfaces

Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, John Johansen
> <john.johansen@...onical.com> wrote:
>> The current apparmorfs interface is compatible with previous versions
>> of AppArmor.  The plans are to deprecate it (hence the config option
>> APPARMOR_COMPAT_24) and replace it with a more sysfs style single
>> entry per file interface.
>
> We don't usually merge compatibility code to handle ABIs that were
> developed out-of-tree. Why should we treat AppArmor differently?

I would say that always depends on the deployed base of the old ABI.
If there's a lot of users who would get broken I think there's a
good case for merging compat code (I don't know if that is or
isn't the case here). 

A widely used distribution release with the old user land would
probably count.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/