lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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

--
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/
Director of Software Engineering http://novell.com
AppArmor Chat: irc.oftc.net/#apparmor

-
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: 2007-06-27 23:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans