lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-18 01:12    [W:0.502 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site