On Friday 25 May 2007 21:06, Casey Schaufler wrote: > --- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > Well, my point was exactly that App Armor doesn't (as far as I know) do > > anything to enforce the argv[0] convention, > > Sounds like an opportunity for improvement then. Jeez, what argv[0] convention are you both talking about? argv[0] is not guaranteed to have any association with the name of the executable. Feel free to have any discussion about argv[0] you want, but *please* keep it away from AppArmor, which really has nothing to do with it. It would be nice if you could stop calling argv[0] checks ``name-based access control'': from the point of view of the kernel no access control is involved, and even application-level argv[0] based access control makes no sense whatsoever. 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
