On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 20:26:57 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sean wrote: > > All of a sudden you've implemented the main features of AA with very > > few changes to the kernel. It should be more maintainable, and much > > easier to get accepted into the kernel. > Do you agree with passing "struct vfsmount" to VFS helper functions and LSM > hooks > and introducing d_namespace_path() so that the AA extension can calculate the > requested pathname > and map the requested pathname to SELinux's labels? > Frankly i'm not in a position to judge, but if that's the best way to provide the desired functionality, then it sounds good. But please make sure you bounce this all off someone who actually knows what they're talking about. ;o) Really I was just casually following along this ongoing conversation and had a more conceptual/design question about how things were implemented. A few people explained how AA labelling at "runtime" wasn't conceptually very different than what SELinux did. All that begged the question as to why that functionality couldn't just be tacked on to SELinux? Sean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
