[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <471C8572.3C0A.0073.0@novell.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:10:50 -0600
From: "Adam Jerome" <abj@...ell.com>
To: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to
static interface
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 6:55 AM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:50:29PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
>> I currently have an LSM that only handles permissions for socket_bind
>> and socket_listen, I load it and then "capability" as secondary on
>> boot - but now I can't because the LSM framework is now just the LS
>> framework.
>>
>> Why can't this "static LSM" change be a Kconfig option?
>> (I don't want to have to maintain my own reverted copy of security/,
>> or compile this into the kernel because then I can't ever modify and
>> reload it without rebooting.)
>
> Let's start with the more important questions:
>
> Did you submit your LSM for inclusion into the kernel?
>
> If yes, why wasn't it accepted?
> If no, why not?
Those are important questions, no doubt. However, that does not
address Simon's question. Especially in light of Linus' statement:
"I'm also perfectly willing to unapply it if there actually are
valid out-of-tree users that people push for not merging."
It seems that, whether submitted (and or accepted) into the kernel
or not, Simon has the obligation to respond to Linus' challenge.
-adam
-
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