Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:I don't get the problem: if you want your web browser to be able to access where you commonly store your documents, then give it that permission. The above rule says that your web browser doesn't get to go change AppArmor policy on its own. I have serious doubts about the utility of restricting a text editor. You nominally want to be able to edit any file on the system, so confining it would be fairly meaningless. AppArmor will let you do that; most of the work is in splitting the application. If you can get e.g. Firefox to use a separate process that it exec's for editing your preferences, then AppArmor can confine that helper app with a different policy than Firefox itself, including granting the helper write permission to the config directory. Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin CEO, Mercenary Linux http://mercenarylinux.com/ Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work -
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
| Andrew Morton | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Michael Opdenacker | [PATCH] x86: fix unconditional arch/x86/kernel/pcspeaker.c compiling |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
