[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimku1sLsZyg3=2Oo9Xq=7U-hDKtc1Fy3ZytxZYS@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:58:42 +0200
From: Jan III Sobieski <jan3sobi3ski@...il.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor #7 0/13] AppArmor security module
Hi,
2010/8/5 Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>:
> On Fri 2010-07-30 09:05:23, James Morris wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, John Johansen wrote:
>>
>> > This is the seveth general posting of the newest version of the
>> > AppArmor security module it has been rewritten to use the security_path
>> > hooks instead of the previous vfs approach. The current implementation
>> > is aimed at being as semantically close to previous versions of AppArmor
>> > as possible while using the existing LSM infrastructure.
>>
>> Applied to
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/security-testing-2.6#next
>>
>> Please carry out any further development against the above tree.
>>
>> Note that I added the patch below to update AA against the latest
>> version of path_truncate:
>
> Ok, so now we have two name-based "security" modules. Can we at least
> drop TOMOYO? That seems to have all apparmor disadvantages plus some
> more...
Great idea! I suggest also to throw away the unnecessary filesystems.
Ext3 is great - who needs Ext4 or XFS?
--
Jan III Sobieski
--
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