[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching

    > I've heard four arguments against merging AA.
    > Argument 1. SELinux does it better than AA. (Or: SELinux dominates AA.
    > Or: SELinux can do everything that AA can.)
    > Argument 2. Object labeling (or: information flow control) is more secure
    > than pathname-based access control.
    > Argument 3. AA isn't complete until it mediates network and IPC.
    > Argument 4. AA doesn't have buy-in from VFS maintainers.


    > 1. I think this is a bogus argument for rejecting AA. As I remember it,
    > 3. This one I agree with. If you want to sandbox network daemons that

    > 4. Way over my head. I'm not qualified to comment on this aspect.
    > I suspect this is the argument that ought to be getting the most serious
    > and thorough discussion, not the irrelevant SELinux-vs-AA faceoff.

    I believe situation is 'vfs maintainers seriously dislike AA', but if
    they were given good enough reasons -- like 'selinux is broken crap
    that does not really work', we probably could twist their arms or

    So question is not 'is AA better then SELinux' but 'is AA so much
    better than SELinux that we want to overrule vfs maintainers'.

    (cesky, pictures)
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-29 14:33    [W:0.021 / U:27.184 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site