Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:50:01 -0500 | From | Bill O'Donnell <> | Subject | Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview |
| |
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:27:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: | | --- David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: | | > From: Crispin Cowan <crispin@novell.com> | > Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:46:57 -0700 | > | > > But we do not want to prevent other people from using SELinux if it | > > suits them. Linux is about choice, and that is especially vital in | > > security. As Linus himself observed when LSM was started, there are a | > > lot of security models, they have various strengths and weaknesses, and | > > often are not compatible with each other. That is why it is important | > > that LSM persist, that SELinux not be the only in-tree user of LSM, and | > > why we think AppArmor should be included upstream, so that non-SUSE | > > users can also use AppArmor if it suits them. | > | > Anyone can apply the apparmour patch to their tree, they get the | > choice that way. Nobody is currently prevented from using apparmour | > if they want to, any such suggestion is pure rubbish. | | The exact same argument was made prior to SELinux going upstream. | Look, if you can't be right, try at least to be original. | | > It is even more incredulious to imply that just by having apparmour | > in the upstream kernel all the userland bits will magically appear | > on every user's distribution. | | Just like all the SELinux userland magically appeared in everyone's | distribution? Nope, didn't happen. | | > Give me a break. | | No. You are out of line and spewing ignorance.
Please. I really wish this thread would stick to the technical matter and dispense with the infernile sniping on one hand and stroking of egos on the other. Sheesh - some of us are actually trying to glean something useful from all of this.
| | > What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that | > it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't | > personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping | > apparmour working with upstream largely off of your back and in the | > hands of the upstream community. | | Duh. Those are pretty much the reasons anyone goes through the | trouble of getting anything upstream. | | > Neither of those are reasons why something should go into the tree. | | They reflect the corporate reality of the open source community. | If you're going to go down the "open source isn't for money" | rathole please take it elsewhere. I've heard the arguments so many | times I can sing them to the tune of "Lady Madonna". | | > Frankly I think AppArmour is a joke, | | "SELinux, AppArmor, and Hilary Clinton walk into a bar ..."
Yawn. Not funny. See above comment.
| > and all of this integration with | > LSM business is just a face saving effort, nothing more. And saving | > face is not, and has never been, a reason for something to be put into | > the upstream tree. | | Believe what you will. Crispin has been working with LSM from the | inception those many years ago. He's been working on getting this | module in for over a year. If you don't like his module go write | your own and put him out of business.
Now this is getting really boring. See above comment. Can't we just stay on point?
-- Bill O'Donnell SGI billodo@sgi.com - 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/
| |