Re: Problem with accessing namespace_sem from LSM.

VFS helper functions and LSM hooks seems to be a good choice to me. Cheers, Toshiharu Harada - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching

ed a RFC of TOMOYO Linux that is another pathname-based MAC. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/58 AA and TOMOYO Linux have BoF sessions at OLS2007, so it would be a great opportunity to *talk* over the issues. What I want to say is "let's make progress and help each other to make Linux better&

Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching

posted a RFC of TOMOYO Linux that is another pathname-based MAC. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/58 AA and TOMOYO Linux have BoF sessions at OLS2007, so it would be a great opportunity to *talk* over the issues. What I want to say is "let's make progress and help each other to make Linu

Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook

;m not talking about security here). Not everybody can be a professional administrators, but he/she can be a professional administrator of his/her system. I believe there must be solutions for non professional administrators. That's why we developed TOMOYO Linux (http://tomoyo.sourceforge.jp/) an

Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook

2007/5/27, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On May 27, 2007, at 03:25:27, Toshiharu Harada wrote: > 2007/5/27, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: How is that argument not trivially circular? "Foo has an assumption that foo-property is always properly defined and maintai

Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook

2007/5/27, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On May 26, 2007, at 19:08:56, Toshiharu Harada wrote: > 2007/5/27, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Sat, 26 May 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote: >>> AppArmor). On the other hand, if you actually want to protect >>&

Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook

abel is something like inventing and assigning a *new* name (label name) to objects which can cause flaws. I'm not saying labeled security or SELinux is wrong. I just wanted to remind that the important part is the "process" not the "result". :-) -- Toshiharu Harada [E

Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook

besides "pathname based MAC". So here's my opinion. If anybody can't explain clear reason (or needs) to keep these ambiguities unsolved,　we should consider to merge the proposal. Thanks. -- Toshiharu Harada [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line &