Re: Re: [AppArmor 00/41] AppArmor security module overview

[Jeff Schroeder]

From: David Wagner <daw <at> cs.berkeley.edu>
Subject:
> David Wagner wrote:

...snip...

> > I still think that ptrace() is not the best way to implement this kind
> > of security tool, and I think it's entirely understandable that they did
> > not use ptrace.  I do not think it is a fair criticism of AppArmor to say
> > "AppArmor should have used ptrace()".

Take a look at utrace in -mm, it offers a completely backwards compatible
ptrace() syscall implemented as a module ontop of it. utrace looks like the
way things will be going forward
http://people.redhat.com/roland/utrace/2.6-current/0-intro.txt

Think of ptrace() implemented using utrace as ptrace that "Sucks Less TM".
Maybe Andy will let utrace out of -mm for 2.6.23.

(please cc: me in any responses)

--

Jeff Schroeder

Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/