From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754909Ab0CGVcP (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:32:15 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:59382 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754678Ab0CGVcN (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:32:13 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 13:31:32 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: James Morris cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin Subject: Re: Upstream first policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, James Morris wrote: > > > it.. But that may have been more of the whole FUD thing from the people > > who for some unfathomable reason think that inodes are more important > > than pathnames. > > Hey, thanks for another random unfounded personal attack, it's really > appreciated. It really isn't personal, you know. I don't even remember _who_ it was that thought that pathname-based security was fundamentally wrong and was bad-mouthing apparmor all they could. My point was just that there's a lot of mindless "my way or the highway" in some security circles, and apparmor really has been ridiculed. It's not _that_ long ago that some group was trying to get rid of LSM just because "selinux is the only valid model". Linus