On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> ## Why a new LSM? Are SELinux, AppArmor, Smack and Tomoyo not good enough?
>
> The current access control LSMs are fine for their purpose which is to give
> the
> *root* the ability to enforce a security policy for the *system*. What is
> missing is
Hi,
This seventh series add some changes to the previous one [1], including a
simplified landlock_context, architecture-independent rules, more documentation
and multiples fixes.
As planed [6], I simplified and make the FS event more generic for the IOCTL,
LOCK or FCNTL actions. The action flags
