Hi!
> > > so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
> > > differences over the use of pathname-based security?
> > >
> > There certainly seems to be some differences of opinion over the use
> > of pathname-based-security.
>
> I was refreshed to have not been cc'ed on a
Hi!
so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
differences over the use of pathname-based security?
There certainly seems to be some differences of opinion over the use
of pathname-based-security.
I was refreshed to have not been cc'ed on a lkml thread for
On Monday 02 July 2007 22:15, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> AA on the other hand just fucks up VFS layering [...]
Oh come on, this claim clearly isn't justified. How on earth is passing
vfsmounts down the lsm hooks supposed to break vfs layering? We are not
proposing to pass additional information
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:47:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:47:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
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)
On Monday 02 July 2007 22:15, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
AA on the other hand just fucks up VFS layering [...]
Oh come on, this claim clearly isn't justified. How on earth is passing
vfsmounts down the lsm hooks supposed to break vfs layering? We are not
proposing to pass additional information
--- Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:31:49PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > It's true that the code review for AppArmor has proven difficult.
> > That's going to be true of any change to the vfs layer, for any
> > reason. Have someone who was there
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:31:49PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> It's true that the code review for AppArmor has proven difficult.
> That's going to be true of any change to the vfs layer, for any
> reason. Have someone who was there tell you about the original XFS
> proposals some time. Again,
--- "Eric W. Biederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A couple of random thoughts to mix up this discussion.
>
> From what I have been able to observer the LSM is roughly firewalls
> rules for in box operations. All it can do is increase the chances
> you will get -EPERM.
More likely
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:47:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:03 -0700 John Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > > so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
>> > > differences over the
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:47:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:03 -0700 John Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
differences over the use of pathname-based
--- Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of random thoughts to mix up this discussion.
From what I have been able to observer the LSM is roughly firewalls
rules for in box operations. All it can do is increase the chances
you will get -EPERM.
More likely -EACCES, but
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:31:49PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
It's true that the code review for AppArmor has proven difficult.
That's going to be true of any change to the vfs layer, for any
reason. Have someone who was there tell you about the original XFS
proposals some time. Again, it's
--- Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:31:49PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
It's true that the code review for AppArmor has proven difficult.
That's going to be true of any change to the vfs layer, for any
reason. Have someone who was there tell you
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:27:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
|
| --- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > From: Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:46:57 -0700
| >
| > > But we do not want to prevent other people from using SELinux if it
| > > suits
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 01:27:12PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> David Miller schrieb:
> > What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that
> > it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't
> > personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping
> >
David Miller schrieb:
> What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that
> it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't
> personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping
> apparmour working with upstream largely off of your back and in the
>
> > Anyone can apply the apparmour patch to their tree, they get the
> > choice that way. Nobody is currently prevented from using apparmour
> > if they want to, any such suggestion is pure rubbish.
>
> The exact same argument was made prior to SELinux going upstream.
Its made for every thing
Anyone can apply the apparmour patch to their tree, they get the
choice that way. Nobody is currently prevented from using apparmour
if they want to, any such suggestion is pure rubbish.
The exact same argument was made prior to SELinux going upstream.
Its made for every thing before it
David Miller schrieb:
What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that
it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't
personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping
apparmour working with upstream largely off of your back and in the
hands of
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 01:27:12PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
David Miller schrieb:
What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that
it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't
personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping
apparmour
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:27:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
|
| --- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| From: Crispin Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:46:57 -0700
|
| But we do not want to prevent other people from using SELinux if it
| suits them. Linux is
Any chance you can remove linux-fsdevel from the CC list? I don't think this
has anything to do with filesystems.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
From: Casey Schaufler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
> --- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Neither of those are reasons why something should go into the tree.
>
> They reflect the corporate reality of the open source community.
> If you're going to
--- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:46:57 -0700
>
> > But we do not want to prevent other people from using SELinux if it
> > suits them. Linux is about choice, and that is especially vital in
> > security. As Linus
From: Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:46:57 -0700
> But we do not want to prevent other people from using SELinux if it
> suits them. Linux is about choice, and that is especially vital in
> security. As Linus himself observed when LSM was started, there are a
> lot of
Sean wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:06:04 -0700
> Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:06:04 -0700
Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
You keep
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
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:47:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:03 -0700 John Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
> > > differences over the use of pathname-based security?
> > >
> > There
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 12:58, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> I seem to recall you could actually end up racing and building a path
> to the file in those directories as "a/d/0/3" or some other path at
> which it never even remotely existed. I'd love to be wrong,
Cheer up, you recall wrong.
> but I
On Jun 26, 2007, at 22:24:03, John Johansen wrote:
other issues that have been raised are:
- the use of d_path to generate the pathname used for mediation when a
file is opened.
- Generating the pathname using a reverse walk is considered ugly
A little more than "ugly". In this basic
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:47:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:03 -0700 John Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
> > > differences over the use of pathname-based security?
> > >
> > There
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:47:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:03 -0700 John Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
differences over the use of pathname-based security?
There certainly seems to
On Jun 26, 2007, at 22:24:03, John Johansen wrote:
other issues that have been raised are:
- the use of d_path to generate the pathname used for mediation when a
file is opened.
- Generating the pathname using a reverse walk is considered ugly
A little more than ugly. In this basic
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 12:58, Kyle Moffett wrote:
I seem to recall you could actually end up racing and building a path
to the file in those directories as a/d/0/3 or some other path at
which it never even remotely existed. I'd love to be wrong,
Cheer up, you recall wrong.
but I can't
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:47:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:03 -0700 John Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
differences over the use of pathname-based security?
There certainly seems to
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
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:06:04 -0700
Crispin Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
You keep saying
Sean wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:06:04 -0700
Crispin Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
From: Crispin Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:46:57 -0700
But we do not want to prevent other people from using SELinux if it
suits them. Linux is about choice, and that is especially vital in
security. As Linus himself observed when LSM was started, there are a
lot of
--- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Crispin Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:46:57 -0700
But we do not want to prevent other people from using SELinux if it
suits them. Linux is about choice, and that is especially vital in
security. As Linus himself
From: Casey Schaufler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
--- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neither of those are reasons why something should go into the tree.
They reflect the corporate reality of the open source community.
If you're going to go down
Any chance you can remove linux-fsdevel from the CC list? I don't think this
has anything to do with filesystems.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:03 -0700 John Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
> > differences over the use of pathname-based security?
> >
> There certainly seems to be some differences of opinion over the use
> of
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:52:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:07:56 -0700
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > This post contains patches to include the AppArmor application security
> > framework, with request for inclusion into -mm for wider testing.
>
> Patches 24 and 31
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:07:56 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This post contains patches to include the AppArmor application security
> framework, with request for inclusion into -mm for wider testing.
Patches 24 and 31 didn't come through.
Rolled-up diffstat (excluding 24&31):
fs/attr.c
This post contains patches to include the AppArmor application security
framework, with request for inclusion into -mm for wider testing.
These patches are currently against lkml but we will gladly rebase them
against -mm so that they will apply cleanly.
Any comments and feedback to improve
This post contains patches to include the AppArmor application security
framework, with request for inclusion into -mm for wider testing.
These patches are currently against lkml but we will gladly rebase them
against -mm so that they will apply cleanly.
Any comments and feedback to improve
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:07:56 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This post contains patches to include the AppArmor application security
framework, with request for inclusion into -mm for wider testing.
Patches 24 and 31 didn't come through.
Rolled-up diffstat (excluding 2431):
fs/attr.c
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:52:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:07:56 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This post contains patches to include the AppArmor application security
framework, with request for inclusion into -mm for wider testing.
Patches 24 and 31 didn't
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:03 -0700 John Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so... where do we stand with this? Fundamental, irreconcilable
differences over the use of pathname-based security?
There certainly seems to be some differences of opinion over the use
of
52 matches
Mail list logo
