| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070417231706.0abe4b23@the-village.bc.nu> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:17:06 +0100 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: daw-usenet@...erner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: AppArmor FAQ > I have a different reaction. Given that the ease of use vs > completeness issues are not completely understood, I would think > it would make more sense to include both in the kernel. Wasn't that > the whole point of the LSM interface, to let competing approaches > bloom and compete on their merits? Yes and that was the decision reached last kernel summit. The remaining problem is to get AppArmor into a state ready for merging, which hopefully this review series is doing. - 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