From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 21:33:20 -0400 Message-ID: <9677.1180229600@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <990795.7773.qm@web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1180229600_6097P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 May 2007 15:58:50 PDT." <990795.7773.qm@web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1180229600_6097P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:58:50 PDT, Casey Schaufler said: > Fair enough, I don't believe that an argv[0] check ought to > be used as a security mechanism. I am not convinced that everyone > would agree with us. Having seen my share of argv[0]-related security bugs in my years, I have to agree that it's a security crock. As to why some might not agree, you already put your finger on it earlier: On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:06:19 PDT, Casey Schaufler said: > nefarious schemes. Remember that security is a subjective thing, and > using argv[0] and AppArmor together might make some people feel better. Some people would rather just feel better... --==_Exmh_1180229600_6097P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFGWN/gcC3lWbTT17ARAvirAKDOUC0J+x8By0TBq5PQaZ1S13IsMQCcCnU4 /ozyEmRdHJEC1LIycxA03Mg= =u97t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1180229600_6097P--