Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:45:34 -0700 (PDT) | | From | David Lang <> | | Subject | Re: AppArmor FAQ |
| |
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> already happened to integrate such support into userland. > > To look at it in a slightly different way, the AA emphasis on not > modifying applications could be viewed as a limitation. Ultimately, > users have security goals that go beyond just what the OS can directly > enforce and at least some applications (notably things like X, D-BUS, > PostgreSQL, etc) need to likewise support strong domain separation and > controlled information flow through their own internal objects and > operations. SELinux provides APIs and infrastructure for such > applications, and has already done quite a bit of work in that space > (D-BUS support, XACE/XSELinux, SE-PostgreSQL), whereas AA seems to have > no interest in going there (and would have to recant its emphasis on no > application mods to do so). If you actually want to truly confine a > desktop application, you can't limit yourself to the kernel. And the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> label model provides a unifying abstraction for dealing with all of > these various objects, whereas the path/"natural abstraction" model has > no unifying abstraction at all.
AA isn't aimed at confineing desktop applications. it's aimed at confining server applications. this really is a easier task (if it happens to be useful for some desktop apps as well, so much the better)
David Lang - 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/
|  |