Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:09:23 -0700 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks |
| |
* Gerrit Huizenga (gh@us.ibm.com) wrote: > I get the impression from customers that SELinux is so painful to > configure correctly that most of them disable it. In theory, LSM + > something like AppArmour provides a much simpler security model for > normal human beings who want some level of configuration. Also, > the current SELinux config in RH is starting to have a measureable > performance impact. I'm not sure this particular battle of the > security models is quite over from a real user perspective.
SELinux usability is not the same issue as having LSM in the kernel. So, I agree, usability can improve, but having AppArmor as external patchkit is not helping show LSM is needed in upstream tree. It needs to survive review and get upstream as a means to showing the use of LSM.
thanks, -chris - 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/
| |