On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Chris Mason wrote: > But, this is a completely different discussion than if AA is > solving problems in the wild for its intended audience, or if the code > is somehow flawed and breaking other parts of the kernel. Is its intended audience aware of its limitiations? Lars has just acknowledged that it does not implement mandatory access control, for one. Until people understand these issues, they certainly need to be addressed in the context of upstream merge. > We've been over the "AA is different" discussion in threads about a > billion times, and at the last kernel summit. I don't believe that people at the summit were adequately informed on the issue, and from several accounts I've heard, Stephen Smalley was effectively cut off before he could even get to his second slide. > I think Lars and others have done a pretty good job of describing the > problems they are trying to solve, can we please move on to discussing > technical issues around that? Keep in mind that this current thread arose from Greg KH asking about whether AppArmor could effectively be implemented via SELinux and userspace labeling. Some of us took the time to perform analysis and then provide feedback on this, in good faith. The underlying issues only came up again in response to an inflammatory post by Lars. If you want to avoid discussions of AppArmor's design, then I suggest taking it up with those who initiate them. - James -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> - 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
