[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview
    Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:47:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    >> Do you agree with the "irreconcilable" part? I think I do.
    I am hoping for a reconciliation where the people who don't like
    AppArmor live with it by not using it. AppArmor is not intended to
    replace SELinux, it is intended to address a different set of goals.

    >> I suspect that we're at the stage of having to decide between
    >> a) set aside the technical issues and grudgingly merge this stuff as a
    >> service to Suse and to their users (both of which entities are very
    >> important to us) and leave it all as an object lesson in
    >> how-not-to-develop-kernel-features.
    >> Minimisation of the impact on the rest of the kernel is of course
    >> very important here.
    >> versus
    >> b) leave it out and require that Suse wear the permanent cost and
    >> quality impact of maintaining it out-of-tree. It will still be an
    >> object lesson in how-not-to-develop-kernel-features.
    >> ...
    > versus
    > c) if [1] AppArmor is considered to be something that wouldn't
    > be merged if it wasn't already widely deployed by Suse: leave it out,
    > work on an ideal solution [2], and let Suse wear the one-time cost
    > of migrating their users to the ideal solution
    We argue that the proposed patch is a viable solution for providing
    AppArmor functionality. We would be happy for specific suggestions on
    how to make it better.

    > I'm not claiming to understand the technical details, but from both
    > slightly reading over the previous discussions and the "What are the
    > advantages of AppArmor over SELinux?" section in the AppArmor FAQ [3] my
    > impression is that a main advantage of AppArmor are more user friendly
    > userspace tools. Therefore, if [1] AppArmor is considered technically
    > inferior to SELinux, it might still become more popular than SELinux
    > simply because it's easier to use - and although it's technically
    > inferior.
    AppArmor's advantages come from the model, not the tools. AppArmor is
    not inferior to SELinux, it is different than SELinux. Neither can
    replace the other without horrid kludges.


    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Director of Software Engineering
    AppArmor Chat:

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-27 23:13    [W:0.068 / U:34.180 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site