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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0911151413280.6163@asgard.lang.hm>
Date:	Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:13:56 -0800 (PST)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	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

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:

> 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.

ubuntu has shipped with AppArmor for the last few releases.

David Lang