| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:25:10 +0100 From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, jjohansen@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/45] AppArmor security module overview On Saturday 27 October 2007 22:47, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:37:21AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > before going into the LSM / security side of things, I'd like to get > > the VFS guys to look at your VFS interaction code. > > It's been NACKed a few times, and just reposting it won't help. Let me repeat what I have said before in another context. The past discussions on linux-kernel were useful for a while, and we got constructive feedback which we could act upon, but then the feedback became very non-constructive again, and you NACKed patches without giving any good reasons. I have asked for specific feedback but didn't get any in: - Rejecting the vfsmount additions, http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118350187712375 - VFS layering fuck-up accusation, http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118348050804600 So can we pick up things there again, and have a real discussion about the things you criticize? Thanks, Andreas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists