From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932199AbWDRL6a (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:58:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932217AbWDRL63 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:58:29 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:21729 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932199AbWDRL62 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:58:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:58:19 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Gerrit Huizenga Cc: Christoph Hellwig , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Stephen Smalley , casey@schaufler-ca.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fireflier-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks Message-ID: <20060418115819.GB8591@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Gerrit Huizenga , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Stephen Smalley , casey@schaufler-ca.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fireflier-devel@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20060417225525.GA17463@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 06:44:51PM -0700, Gerrit Huizenga wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:55:25 BST, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 03:15:29PM -0700, Gerrit Huizenga wrote: > > > configure correctly that most of them disable it. In theory, LSM + > > > something like AppArmour provides a much simpler security model for > > > > apparmor falls into the findamentally broken category above, so it's > > totally uninteresting except as marketing candy for the big red company. > > Is there a pointer to why it is fundamentally broken? I haven't seen > such comments before but it may be that I've been hanging out on the > wrong lists or spending too much time inhaling air at 30,000 feet. It's doing access control on pathnames, which can't work in unix enviroments. It's following the default permit behaviour which causes pain in anything security-related (compare [1]). [1] http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/