From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Karl MacMillan <kmacmill@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation,
	pathname matching
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:28:35 -0400
Message-ID: <1181942915.9809.35.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1181931330.17547.866.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
	 <44036.5340.qm@web36611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	 <20070615211414.GC7337@kroah.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	Crispin Cowan <crispin@novell.com>,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, jjohansen@suse.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Return-path: <linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070615211414.GC7337@kroah.com>
Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:14 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:43:31PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > 
> > Yup, I see that once you accept the notion that it is OK for a
> > file to be misslabeled for a bit and that having a fixxerupperd
> > is sufficient it all falls out.
> > 
> > My point is that there is a segment of the security community
> > that had not found this acceptable, even under the conditions
> > outlined. If it meets your needs, I say run with it.
> 
> If that segment feels that way, then I imagine AA would not meet their
> requirements today due to file handles and other ways of passing around
> open files, right?
> 
> So, would SELinux today (without this AA-like daemon) fit the
> requirements of this segment?
> 

Yes - RHEL 5 is going through CC evaluations for LSPP, CAPP, and RBAC
using the features of SELinux where appropriate.

Karl