> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:37:21AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> yes, the vfs interaction definitely need their review.
>
> > 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..
> >
> yes this is needed and a good idea in general
>
