![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
James Morris wrote: >The point is that the pathname model does not generalize, and that >AppArmor's inability to provide adequate coverage of the system is a >design issue arising from this. I don't see it. I don't see why you call this a design issue. Isn't this just a case where they haven't gotten around to implementing network and IPC mediation yet? How is that a design issue arising from a pathname-based model? For instance, one system I built (Janus) provided complete mediation, including mediation of network and IPC, yet it too used a pathname model for its policy file when describing the policy for the filesystem. That seems to contradict your statement. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-06-24 21:25 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||