On Friday 25 May 2007 19:43, Casey Schaufler wrote: > [...] but the AppArmor code could certainly check for that in exec by > enforcing the argv[0] convention. It would be perfectly reasonable for a > system that is so dependent on pathnames to require that. Hmm ... that's a strange idea. AppArmor cannot assume anything about argv[0], and it would be a really bad idea to change the well-established semantics of argv[0]. There is no actual need for looking at argv[0], though: AppArmor decides based on the actual pathname of the executable... Thanks, Andreas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
