[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:38:26 +1000 (AEST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 00/10] Landlock LSM: Toward
unprivileged sandboxing
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> ## Why a new LSM? Are SELinux, AppArmor, Smack and Tomoyo not good enough?
>
> The current access control LSMs are fine for their purpose which is to give the
> *root* the ability to enforce a security policy for the *system*. What is
> missing is a way to enforce a security policy for any application by its
> developer and *unprivileged user* as seccomp can do for raw syscall filtering.
>
You could mention here that the first case is Mandatory Access Control,
in general terms.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
