From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: AppArmor FAQ Date: 17 Apr 2007 20:05:29 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20070416213350.GB4030@suse.de> <1176822230.3366.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1176825641.5946.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Safford , James Morris , John Johansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Karl MacMillan Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59348 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031222AbXDQRHf (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:07:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1176825641.5946.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Karl MacMillan writes: > No - the real fix is to change the applications or to run under a policy > that confines all applications. Most of the problems with resolv.conf, > mtab, etc. stem from admin processes (e.g., editors or shell scripts) > all running under the same unconfined domain. > > In some cases applications need modification as only the application has > enough information to determine the correct label. Usually this means > preserving labels from input files or separating the output into > distinct directories so type transitions or label inheritance will work. > > restorecond is just a hack not a requirement or a sign that something is > wrong with the model. That is why it is a userspace application and not > integrated into the kernel mechanism. You nicely show one of the major disadvantages of the label model vs the path model here: it requires modification of a lot of applications. Maybe John can borrow your statement for new versions of his FAQ @) -Andi