| |||||||||||||
The AppArmor debate beginsThe AppArmor debate beginsPosted Apr 28, 2006 5:49 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: The AppArmor debate begins by vmole Parent article: The AppArmor debate begins
note that AppArmor is planning to make all paths be absolute paths, so if you chroot bind in /bind then it's profile would be /bind/** to close this exact vunerability.
don't mistake a weakness in the current implementation with a fundamental flaw in the design
(Log in to post comments)
The AppArmor debate begins Posted Apr 28, 2006 17:28 UTC (Fri) by MenTaLguY (subscriber, #21879) [Link] Since Linux supports per-process namespaces, there ARE no globally absolute paths.
The AppArmor debate begins Posted May 4, 2006 9:13 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link] I disagree: the kernel has to do the translation so it has 'absolute' paths.
That each process can have a different view doesn't imply that there is no absolute path.
The AppArmor debate begins Posted May 4, 2006 16:58 UTC (Thu) by MenTaLguY (subscriber, #21879) [Link] No, it doesn't. As I recall (it's been a long time since I've messed with filesystem stuff), each namespace can have its own root dentry, and dentries are mostly used used for looking up inodes by their path within a particular namespace.
There is no real "absolute" path to a file because the kernel doesn't need it. Most interesting things happen at the filesystem/inode level.
(One of the reasons that people object to AppArmor is that it'd require pushing a lot of things up into dentry-land, when the whole system was designed around inodes.)
|
|||||||||||||