linux-kernel - Re: Upstream first policy

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.LFD.2.00.1003071327420.4033@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:31:32 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>
Subject: Re: Upstream first policy

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, James Morris wrote:
>
> > it.. But that may have been more of the whole FUD thing from the people 
> > who for some unfathomable reason think that inodes are more important 
> > than pathnames.
> 
> Hey, thanks for another random unfounded personal attack, it's really 
> appreciated.

It really isn't personal, you know. I don't even remember _who_ it was 
that thought that pathname-based security was fundamentally wrong and was 
bad-mouthing apparmor all they could. My point was just that there's a lot 
of mindless "my way or the highway" in some security circles, and apparmor 
really has been ridiculed.

It's not _that_ long ago that some group was trying to get rid of LSM just 
because "selinux is the only valid model".

		Linus
--
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/