[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Xine.LNX.4.64.0710210842540.551@us.intercode.com.au>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:57:06 +1000 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...oo.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: LSM conversion to static interface
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected, and had
> >examples of their real-world use to step forward and explain their use,
> >and that I explicitly mentioned that this is something we can easily
> >re-visit.
> >
>
> I do have a pseudo LSM called "multiadm" at
> http://freshmeat.net/p/multiadm/ , quoting:
>
Based on Linus' criteria, this appears to be a case for reverting the
static LSM patch.
Jan, I remember you posting this last year and IIRC, there were really
only coding style issues to be addressed. There were some review queries
and suggestions (e.g. decomposing CAP_SYS_ADMIN), but no deal-breakers --
certainly not now that security architecture and security model objections
are out of bounds.
So, I would suggest reposting the code for upstream inclusion, which
would be better at least in terms of upstream maintenance, as your code
will be visible in the tree.
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
-
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