lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Upstream first policy


On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, James Morris wrote:
>
> > it.. But that may have been more of the whole FUD thing from the people
> > who for some unfathomable reason think that inodes are more important
> > than pathnames.
>
> Hey, thanks for another random unfounded personal attack, it's really
> appreciated.

It really isn't personal, you know. I don't even remember _who_ it was
that thought that pathname-based security was fundamentally wrong and was
bad-mouthing apparmor all they could. My point was just that there's a lot
of mindless "my way or the highway" in some security circles, and apparmor
really has been ridiculed.

It's not _that_ long ago that some group was trying to get rid of LSM just
because "selinux is the only valid model".

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-07 22:35    [W:0.113 / U:0.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site