Re: More LSM vs. Containers (having nothing at all to do with the AppArmor Security Goal)

Peter Dolding wrote: > On Nov 18, 2007 5:22 AM, Casey Schaufler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- Peter Dolding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Nov 17, 2007 11:08 AM, Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Peter Dolding wrote: > Assign application to >>>

Re: More LSM vs. Containers (having nothing at all to do with the AppArmor Security Goal)

On Nov 18, 2007 5:22 AM, Casey Schaufler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Peter Dolding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 2007 11:08 AM, Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Peter Dolding wrote: > > > >>> What is left unspecified here is 'how' a child 'with its own profile'

Re: More LSM vs. Containers (having nothing at all to do with the AppArmor Security Goal)

--- Peter Dolding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 17, 2007 11:08 AM, Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Peter Dolding wrote: > > >>> What is left unspecified here is 'how' a child 'with its own profile' > is > > >>> confined here. Are it is confined to just its own profile, it may t

Re: More LSM vs. Containers (having nothing at all to do with the AppArmor Security Goal)

On Nov 17, 2007 11:08 AM, Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Dolding wrote: > >>> What is left unspecified here is 'how' a child 'with its own profile' is > >>> confined here. Are it is confined to just its own profile, it may that > >>> the "complicit process" communication may need

More LSM vs. Containers (having nothing at all to do with the AppArmor Security Goal)

Peter Dolding wrote: >>> What is left unspecified here is 'how' a child 'with its own profile' is >>> confined here. Are it is confined to just its own profile, it may that >>> the "complicit process" communication may need to be wider specified to >>> include this. >>> > Sorry have to bring