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

Bill O'Donnell
2007-06-28T13:48:11Z

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:27:17PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
|
| --- David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
|
| > From: Crispin Cowan <crispin@novell.com>
| > Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:46:57 -0700
| >
| > > But we do not want to prevent other people from using SELinux if it
| > > suits them. Linux is about choice, and that is especially vital in
| > > security. As Linus himself observed when LSM was started, there are a
| > > lot of security models, they have various strengths and weaknesses, and
| > > often are not compatible with each other. That is why it is important
| > > that LSM persist, that SELinux not be the only in-tree user of LSM, and
| > > why we think AppArmor should be included upstream, so that non-SUSE
| > > users can also use AppArmor if it suits them.
| >
| > Anyone can apply the apparmour patch to their tree, they get the
| > choice that way. Nobody is currently prevented from using apparmour
| > if they want to, any such suggestion is pure rubbish.
|
| The exact same argument was made prior to SELinux going upstream.
| Look, if you can't be right, try at least to be original.
|
| > It is even more incredulious to imply that just by having apparmour
| > in the upstream kernel all the userland bits will magically appear
| > on every user's distribution.
|
| Just like all the SELinux userland magically appeared in everyone's
| distribution? Nope, didn't happen.
|
| > Give me a break.
|
| No. You are out of line and spewing ignorance.

Please.
I really wish this thread would stick to the technical matter and
dispense with the infernile sniping on one hand and stroking of
egos on the other. Sheesh - some of us are actually trying to glean
something useful from all of this.

|
| > What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that
| > it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't
| > personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping
| > apparmour working with upstream largely off of your back and in the
| > hands of the upstream community.
|
| Duh. Those are pretty much the reasons anyone goes through the
| trouble of getting anything upstream.
|
| > Neither of those are reasons why something should go into the tree.
|
| They reflect the corporate reality of the open source community.
| If you're going to go down the "open source isn't for money"
| rathole please take it elsewhere. I've heard the arguments so many
| times I can sing them to the tune of "Lady Madonna".
|
| > Frankly I think AppArmour is a joke,
|
| "SELinux, AppArmor, and Hilary Clinton walk into a bar ..."

Yawn. Not funny. See above comment.

| > and all of this integration with
| > LSM business is just a face saving effort, nothing more. And saving
| > face is not, and has never been, a reason for something to be put into
| > the upstream tree.
|
| Believe what you will. Crispin has been working with LSM from the
| inception those many years ago. He's been working on getting this
| module in for over a year. If you don't like his module go write
| your own and put him out of business.

Now this is getting really boring. See above comment.
Can't we just stay on point?

--
Bill O'Donnell
SGI
billodo@sgi.com