From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760139Ab0HEK1i (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2010 06:27:38 -0400 Received: from tundra.namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:45941 "EHLO tundra.namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760109Ab0HEK1a (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2010 06:27:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 20:27:24 +1000 (EST) From: James Morris To: Pavel Machek cc: John Johansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [AppArmor #7 0/13] AppArmor security module In-Reply-To: <20100805062431.GA1546@ucw.cz> Message-ID: References: <1280440089-3203-1-git-send-email-john.johansen@canonical.com> <20100805062431.GA1546@ucw.cz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23) 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 Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Note that I added the patch below to update AA against the latest > > version of path_truncate: > > Ok, so now we have two name-based "security" modules. Can we at least > drop TOMOYO? That seems to have all apparmor disadvantages plus some > more... No. The policy is that any security module which implements an access control scheme and meets a well-defined security goal, and passes technical review, may be merged. aka, The Arjan Protocol: http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Documenting_Security_Module_Intent -- James Morris