On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 12:03:57AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > AppArmor is meant to be relatively easy to understand, manage, and customize, > and introducing a labels layer wouldn't help these goals. Woah, that describes the userspace side of AA just fine, it means nothing when it comes to the in-kernel implementation. There is no reason that you can't implement the same functionality using some totally different in-kernel solution if possible. > SELinux is applicable in areas where AppArmor is not (e.g., MLS), but > this comes at a cost. For me the question is not SELinux or AppArmor, > but if AppArmor's security model is a good solution in common > scenarios. In my opinion, AppArmor is a better answer than SELinux in > a number of scenarios. This gives it value, nonwithstanding the fact > that SELinux can be taken further. I am still not completely certian that we can not properly implement AA functionality using a SELinux backend solution. Yes, the current tools that try to implement this are still lacking, and maybe the kernel needs to change, but that is possible. I still want to see a definition of the AA "model" that we can then use to try to implement using whatever solution works best. As that seems to be missing the current argument of if AA can or can not be implemented using SELinux or something totally different should be stopped. So, AA developers, do you have such a document anywhere? I know there are some old research papers, do they properly describe the current model you are trying to implement here? thanks, greg k-h - 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
