From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756341AbXFVOXW (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:23:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755336AbXFVOXI (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:23:08 -0400 Received: from mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.6]:49902 "EHLO mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755232AbXFVOXG (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:23:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:23:03 -0400 (EDT) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@localhost.localdomain To: Chris Mason cc: Stephen Smalley , Lars Marowsky-Bree , Pavel Machek , Crispin Cowan , Greg KH , Andreas Gruenbacher , jjohansen@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching In-Reply-To: <20070622140240.GM6222@think.oraclecorp.com> Message-ID: References: <20070621160840.GA20105@marowsky-bree.de> <20070621183311.GC18990@elf.ucw.cz> <20070621192407.GF20105@marowsky-bree.de> <20070621195400.GK20105@marowsky-bree.de> <1182459594.20464.16.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20070622003436.GB6222@think.oraclecorp.com> <20070622121742.GC6222@think.oraclecorp.com> <20070622140240.GM6222@think.oraclecorp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Chris Mason wrote: > But, this is a completely different discussion than if AA is > solving problems in the wild for its intended audience, or if the code > is somehow flawed and breaking other parts of the kernel. Is its intended audience aware of its limitiations? Lars has just acknowledged that it does not implement mandatory access control, for one. Until people understand these issues, they certainly need to be addressed in the context of upstream merge. > We've been over the "AA is different" discussion in threads about a > billion times, and at the last kernel summit. I don't believe that people at the summit were adequately informed on the issue, and from several accounts I've heard, Stephen Smalley was effectively cut off before he could even get to his second slide. > I think Lars and others have done a pretty good job of describing the > problems they are trying to solve, can we please move on to discussing > technical issues around that? Keep in mind that this current thread arose from Greg KH asking about whether AppArmor could effectively be implemented via SELinux and userspace labeling. Some of us took the time to perform analysis and then provide feedback on this, in good faith. The underlying issues only came up again in response to an inflammatory post by Lars. If you want to avoid discussions of AppArmor's design, then I suggest taking it up with those who initiate them. - James -- James Morris