[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <928208.47508.qm@web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morgan <agm@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
--- Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org> wrote:
> * Casey Schaufler (casey@...aufler-ca.com) wrote:
> > So, for planning purposes, when ought I expect to have to start
> > dealing with this?
>
> What is your specific concern or use case?
Just hoping to avoid a change collision. If I have to deal
with this today it's easy, if it doesn't show up anywhere
until 2.6.28 I'm breezing, but if it all hits in two weeks I
have some scrambling and yet another delay to deal with. Not
your problem, a little information would be helpful though.
BTW, I reviewed my notes from the early days of LSM and it
turns out that I agree with the notion that loadable modules
don't make a whole lot of sense. So long as I can choose
security models as easily as I can change file systems, I'm
reasonably happy. That, and that the "default" "regular"
policy isn't too terribly different from the traditional
Unix policy.
Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
-
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