Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks

[Chris Wright]

* Gerrit Huizenga (gh@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> I get the impression from customers that SELinux is so painful to
> configure correctly that most of them disable it.  In theory, LSM +
> something like AppArmour provides a much simpler security model for
> normal human beings who want some level of configuration.  Also,
> the current SELinux config in RH is starting to have a measureable
> performance impact.  I'm not sure this particular battle of the
> security models is quite over from a real user perspective.

SELinux usability is not the same issue as having LSM in the kernel.
So, I agree, usability can improve, but having AppArmor as external
patchkit is not helping show LSM is needed in upstream tree.  It needs
to survive review and get upstream as a means to showing the use of LSM.

thanks,
-chris
-
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/