From: Andreas Gruenbacher Subject: Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 22:00:21 +0200 Message-ID: <200705252200.21765.agruen@suse.de> References: <267570.85171.qm@web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard , James Morris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Return-path: Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35253 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752875AbXEYUAg (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2007 16:00:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <267570.85171.qm@web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Friday 25 May 2007 19:43, Casey Schaufler wrote: > [...] but the AppArmor code could certainly check for that in exec by > enforcing the argv[0] convention. It would be perfectly reasonable for a > system that is so dependent on pathnames to require that. Hmm ... that's a strange idea. AppArmor cannot assume anything about argv[0], and it would be a really bad idea to change the well-established semantics of argv[0]. There is no actual need for looking at argv[0], though: AppArmor decides based on the actual pathname of the executable... Thanks, Andreas