linux-kernel - Re: static LSM objection

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071012222008.GA10703@outflux.net>
Date:	Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:20:08 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <kees@...ntu.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: static LSM objection

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 02:42:27PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> I just wanted to voice my opinion about the static LSM changes.

Through the magic of greylisting (thanks vger) and IRC, I've just had a
chat with Arjan and GregKH about this stuff.  So, just to follow up for
people interested in watching me talk to myself:

- while an LSM must be compiled in, they are not mutually exclusive,
  and the desired module can be selected at boot-time.

As such, I don't have any strong objections.  It'd be nice for folks
doing LSM development to allow for a way for it to be modular, but I'll let
them fight for that.  :)

Sorry for the noise,

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
-
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/