Re-sent with proper addressing ... Rob Meijer wrote:As far as I can tall, the transitive closure of permissions is precisely authority. It is deliberately unspecified in this document, because it is a matter of policy. And this item that you've excerpted is just one of a list of specific disclaimers that were put here in response to criticisms and misunderstandings of AppArmor in the past. Remember, the purpose of *this* document is to define the security goals that AppArmor has to live up to. It is fine to use it as a jumping off point for design ideas that some system might employ some day, or even proposed enhancements to AppArmor itself, but don't over-burden the "security goal" document, it needs to be short & comprehensible. It counts as a surprising result, and so is specifically disclaimed. I can tell it is surprising, because it surprised Andi Kleen :) Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin CEO, Mercenary Linux http://mercenarylinux.com/ Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work -
| H. Peter Anvin | Re: [rft] s2ram wakeup moves to .c, could fix few machines |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Ingo Molnar | [patch] PID namespace design bug, workaround |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Eric Dumazet | Re: Multicast packet loss |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
