On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:37:21AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:40:24 -0700
> jjohansen@suse.de wrote:
>=20
> before going into the LSM / security side of things, I'd like to get
> the VFS guys to look at your VFS interaction code.
>=20
yes, the vfs interaction definitely need their review.

quoted text
> 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..
>=20
yes this is needed and a good idea in general

thanks
john