From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757369AbcJXEo2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:44:28 -0400 Received: from [65.99.196.166] ([65.99.196.166]:53438 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754328AbcJXEoY (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:44:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:44:17 +1100 (AEDT) From: James Morris To: Tetsuo Handa cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Johansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module In-Reply-To: <1477054150-4772-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Message-ID: References: <1477054150-4772-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > (1) CaitSith can use both string / numeric arguments (like TOMOYO and > AppArmor) and security labels (like SELinux and Smack). There is no > reason that access control implementation must not use both. > I believe that AppArmor will be gaining more support for security labels. JJ: is that correct? -- James Morris