Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Crispin Cowan
Date: Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 4:18 pm

Casey Schaufler wrote:
It isn't even an exclusive decision: both design points can be "right",
but aimed at different use cases. Which is why LSM exists, so users can
decide on an appropriate mechanism.

Crispin

-- 
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.               http://crispincowan.com/~crispin/
Director of Software Engineering   http://novell.com
	AppArmor Chat: irc.oftc.net/#apparmor

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Sat Aug 11, 10:57 am)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Arjan van de Ven, (Sat Aug 11, 12:12 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Sat Aug 11, 12:56 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Sun Aug 12, 10:48 am)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Sun Aug 12, 12:41 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Sun Aug 12, 12:50 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Crispin Cowan, (Sun Aug 12, 4:18 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Valdis.Kletnieks, (Sun Aug 19, 2:12 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel, Casey Schaufler, (Wed Aug 22, 11:47 am)