| 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: <7b69d1470707190630r322eb8bfka7b0dbd1677b7396@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0500 From: "Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com> To: "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: "James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, "Christian Ehrhardt" <lk@...e.de>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Chris Wright" <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, "Stephen Smalley" <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface On 7/19/07, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > > > Please distinguish between "cater to" and "support". If the kernel > > didn't worry about supporting out-of-tree code, then why would there > > be loadable module at all? > > Memory usage, flexibility, debugging. > > Module support was not added for external modules. > Code that is being debugged is, often [usually, I hope], out-of-tree code, though it may be aimed at future inclusion. However, I do agree that there is value to having loadable modules for in-tree functionality, too. scott -- scott preece - 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