[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11103.simon.1193139489@5ec7c279.invalid>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:38:09 +0100
From: "Simon Arlott" <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
To: "Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: "Thomas Fricaccia" <thomas_fricacci@...oo.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"LSM ML" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"Crispin Cowan" <crispin@...spincowan.com>
Subject: Re: LSM conversion to static interface
On Mon, October 22, 2007 18:13, Greg KH wrote:
> I agree, that is why customers do not load other random security modules
> in their kernel today, and why they will not do so tomorrow. So,
> because of that, this whole point about compliance with regulatory law
> seems kind of moot :)
>
> Again, LSM isn't going away at all, this is just one config option for
> allowing LSM to work as a module that is changing. If a customer
> demands that this feature come back, I'm sure that the big distros will
> be the first to push for it. But currently, given that there are no
> known external LSMs being used by customers demanding support, I don't
> see what the big issue here really is.
I have an out of tree module to do per-port (tcp/udp) bind permissions,
it works fine with the "capability" module as secondary and I can load
or unload both of them at any time... this recent change completely
breaks that. (I had to #include dummy.c though).
Why should I now need to:
1. reboot every time I change the code when I could just reload modules before?
2. put it into my kernel source tree to use it?
--
Simon Arlott
-
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