On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:40:24 -0700 jjohansen@suse.de wrote: before going into the LSM / security side of things, I'd like to get the VFS guys to look at your VFS interaction code. In addition, I'd like to ask you to put a file in Documentation/ somewhere that describes what AppArmor is intended security protection is (it's different from SELinux for sure for example); by having such a document for each LSM user, end users and distros can make a more informed decision which module suits their requirements... and it also makes it possible to look at the implementation to see if it has gaps to the intent, without getting into a pissing contest about which security model is better; but unless the security goals are explicitly described that's a trap that will keep coming back... so please spend some time on getting a good description going here.. -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc5: System boot regression caused by commit a2bd7274b47124d2fc4d... |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
