From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: Adding a security parameter to VFS functions Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:52:17 +0100 Message-ID: <2945.1187196737@redhat.com> References: <45343.31878.qm@web36610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <45343.31878.qm@web36610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Casey Schaufler wrote: > > Could you describe how this compares to the proposal that the > AppArmor developers suggested recently? I expect that we can > reduce the amount of discussion required, and maybe avoid some > confusion if you could do that. I don't know what that is. David