From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 21:15:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20070702201534.GA4896@infradead.org> References: <997814.45234.qm@web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , John Johansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Casey Schaufler Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <997814.45234.qm@web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:31:49PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > It's true that the code review for AppArmor has proven difficult. > That's going to be true of any change to the vfs layer, for any > reason. Have someone who was there tell you about the original XFS > proposals some time. Again, it's not LSM's fault. Utterly wrong comparism. There haven't been any VFS changes for XFS. There has been some new functionality in the core kernel, but the more interesting bits where in the VM (e.g. vmap which is now widely used). AA on the other hand just fucks up VFS layering to implement really dumb semantics. A better comparism would be to some of the original reiser4 suggestions, although to be as bad you'd have to look at Hans' whitepapers and not actually existing code. And yes, there's a reason his pipedreams never got anywhere near merged.