lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview
    On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:52:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:07:56 -0700
    > jjohansen@suse.de wrote:
    >
    > > This post contains patches to include the AppArmor application security
    > > framework, with request for inclusion into -mm for wider testing.
    >
    > Patches 24 and 31 didn't come through.
    >
    yes, sorry about that I had a very odd failure authetication failure
    with those two mails and missed it.

    They have been recent.

    >
    > so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
    > differences over the use of pathname-based security?
    >
    There certainly seems to be some differences of opinion over the use
    of pathname-based-security.

    > Are there any other sticking points?
    >
    >
    The conditional passing of the vfsmnt mount in the vfs, as done in this
    patch series, has received a NAK. This problem results from NFS passing
    a NULL nameidata into the vfs. We have a second patch series that we
    have posted for discussion that addresses this by splitting the nameidata
    struct.
    Message-Id: <20070626231510.883881222@suse.de>
    Subject: [RFD 0/4] AppArmor - Don't pass NULL nameidata to
    vfs_create/lookup/permission IOPs

    other issues that have been raised are:
    - AppArmor does not currently mediate IPC and network communications.
    Mediation of these is a wip
    - the use of d_path to generate the pathname used for mediation when a
    file is opened.
    - Generating the pathname using a reverse walk is considered ugly
    - A buffer is alloced to store the generated path name.
    - The buffer size has a configurable upper limit which will cause
    opens to fail if the pathname length exceeds this limit. This
    is a fail closed behavior.
    - there have been some concerns expressed about the performance
    of this approach
    We are evaluating our options on how best to address this issue.
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-27 04:27    [W:0.046 / U:0.444 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site