On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:34:48 -0700 John Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:37:21AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:40:24 -0700 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > before going into the LSM / security side of things, I'd like to get > > the VFS guys to look at your VFS interaction code. > > > yes, the vfs interaction definitely need their review. > > > In addition, I'd like to ask you to put a file in Documentation/ > > somewhere that describes what AppArmor is intended security > > protection is (it's different from SELinux for sure for example); > > by having such a document for each LSM user, end users and distros > > can make a more informed decision which module suits their > > requirements... and it also makes it possible to look at the > > implementation to see if it has gaps to the intent, without getting > > into a pissing contest about which security model is better; but > > unless the security goals are explicitly described that's a trap > > that will keep coming back... so please spend some time on getting > > a good description going here.. > > > yes this is needed and a good idea in general > would you mind posting your first stab at this to the list shortly, because without that it's nearly impossible to review your patchkit in a sensible way... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
