Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...>, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@...>, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@...>, James Morris <jmorris@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <linux-security-module@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Sorry, the subtlety of the difference seems insignificant to me.
As I outlined, it wouldn't be that hard to rewack SELinux from Smack.
Y'all keep saying that, but since noone has actually done that
SELinux policy, or anything like it, I maintain that it's not as
easy as you are inclined to claim. It is certainly not the "I'll
whip it up this weekend" sort of task that some have suggested.
Well, there is that. I personally think that one implementation of
SELinux is plenty.
On the other hand, I think that if the concept of a single security
architecture has value the advocates of that position ought to be
looking at SELinux on/of Smack just as carefully as they look at
Smack on/of SELinux. If they are not, I suggest that the Single
Security Architecture argument is a sophistic device rather than
a legitimate issue of technology and should thus be ignored.
Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
-
