From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755438Ab0CHTQW (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:16:22 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:59985 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753798Ab0CHTQQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:16:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:15:13 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Al Viro cc: Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , James Morris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: Upstream first policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100308094647.GA14268@elte.hu> <20100308173008.7ae389ab@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100308184521.GK30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> 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, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Sure, there is content security. Nobody disputes that. The security > decision about how to open a file is about the contents of the file. Btw, I would also say that content security is generally the _common_ case. So I'm not at all saying that the traditional unix model or the selinux model is in any way "wrong". Not at all. It's just that I certainly understand why some people think AppArmor is more "intuitive". And I think it's directly related to the fact that sometimes the pathname-based approach is the one that more directly reflects the particular issue (and people are often happy with the traditional UNIX semantics for plain inode-based security, so again, it's not like AppArmor _replaces_ inode-based security, it _extends_ on it). Linus