Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:40:08 -0700 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: Some Concrete AppArmor Questions - was Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview |
| |
* Arjan van de Ven (arjan@infradead.org) wrote: > On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 06:15 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Thursday 27 April 2006 01:06, Ken Brush wrote: > > > > > > 2/ What advantages does AppArmor provide over techniques involving > > > > virtualisation or gaol mechanisms? Are these advantages worth > > > > while? > > > > I would guess the advantage is easier administration. e.g. I always > > found it a PITA to synchronize files like /etc/resolv.conf and similar > > files into chroots. > > there's another option than just chroots; construct a namespace with > just the allowed files bind-mounted in. That is 100% scriptable and also > doesn't have the "stale files" problem
That doesn't support different access modes aside of DAC, which defeats the point. So either way, there's a need for better infrastructure. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |