Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1649890 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 3/3] apparmor: virtualize the policy/ directory

Started byKees Cook <keescook@google.com>
First post2017-05-24 21:40 +0200
Last post2017-05-24 22:20 +0200
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH 3/3] apparmor: virtualize the policy/ directory Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> - 2017-05-24 21:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 3/3] apparmor: virtualize the policy/ directory John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> - 2017-05-24 22:20 +0200

#1649890 — Re: [PATCH 3/3] apparmor: virtualize the policy/ directory

FromKees Cook <keescook@google.com>
Date2017-05-24 21:40 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] apparmor: virtualize the policy/ directory
Message-ID<tKKit-6rO-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 7:46 PM, John Johansen
<john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
> virtualize the apparmor policy/ directory so that the current namespace
> affects what part of policy is seen. This is done by
>
>  * creating a new apparmorfs filesystem
>  * creating a magic symlink from securityfs to the correct apparmorfs
>    file in the tree (similar to nsfs use).
>
> apparmor fs data and fns also get renamed some to help indicate where
> they are used
>
>   aafs - special magic apparmorfs
>   aa_sfs - for fns/data that go into securityfs
>   aa_fs - for fns/data that may be used in the either of aafs or securityfs
>
> Signed-off-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
> Reviewed-by: Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com>

This all looks fine to me. If you do a v2 of these patches, it might
make sense to split up some of the logical changes here. For example,
have one patch that does the renamings but no code changes. Then add
the new fs, and finally integrate the new fs. That might make it
easier to review. Regardless:

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1649924

FromJohn Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Date2017-05-24 22:20 +0200
Message-ID<tKKVd-6Ww-57@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1649890
On 05/24/2017 12:38 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 7:46 PM, John Johansen
> <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
>> virtualize the apparmor policy/ directory so that the current namespace
>> affects what part of policy is seen. This is done by
>>
>>  * creating a new apparmorfs filesystem
>>  * creating a magic symlink from securityfs to the correct apparmorfs
>>    file in the tree (similar to nsfs use).
>>
>> apparmor fs data and fns also get renamed some to help indicate where
>> they are used
>>
>>   aafs - special magic apparmorfs
>>   aa_sfs - for fns/data that go into securityfs
>>   aa_fs - for fns/data that may be used in the either of aafs or securityfs
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com>
> 
> This all looks fine to me. If you do a v2 of these patches, it might
> make sense to split up some of the logical changes here. For example,
> have one patch that does the renamings but no code changes. Then add
> the new fs, and finally integrate the new fs. That might make it
> easier to review. Regardless:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> 
Okay, thanks will do.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web