Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview

Christoph Hellwig
2007-07-02T20:19:09Z

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.