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 linux-cve-announce 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 10:51:34 -0800
From:	John Johansen <jrjohansen@...izon.net>
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 wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> 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?
> 
Not necessarily saying you should.  We would certainly like to support the
current interface as it will be a pain for our users if newer kernels break
abi so the user space tools don't work.  And there is also that the compat
interface  is the only interface currently supported.  The goal was to
declare our intent to deprecate the interface and move to a new
interface interface in time.

cheers
john
--
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/