[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071026232653.GF30533@stusta.de>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:26:53 +0200
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...oo.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Crispin Cowan <crispin@...spincowan.com>,
Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@...ian.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to
static interface)
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:09:14AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >> Am 25.10.2007 00:31 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> >> > Generally, the goal is to get external modules included into the kernel.
> >> > [...] even though it might sound harsh breaking
> >> > external modules and thereby making people aware that their code should
> >> > get into the kernel is IMHO a positive point.
> >>
> >> This argument seems to start from the assumption that any externally
> >> maintained kernel code *can* get into the kernel, which doesn't stand
> >> up to reality. Once you admit that there is code which, for very good
> >> reasons, won't ever be accepted into the mainline kernel tree, what you
> >> are saying amounts to: "Code that isn't fit to be included in the
> >> mainline kernel isn't fit to exist at all."
> >
> > What kind of code is not accepted into the mainline kernel tree for good
> > reasons?
>
> - proprietary code
It's unclear whether distributing not GPL compatible modules is legal
at all.
And they are definitely not "very good reasons" for doing anything in
the kernel.
> - unmaintained code
Unmaintained code in the kernel has a realistic chance of being usable
for 5 years.
Unmaintained external code is quite likely to be unusable after
at most one year.
> - code conflicting with existing kernel structure or policy
> - code in which the concerned subsystem maintainers see no benefit
Let's fix the problems, not work around them.
There is a conflict between getting code included and ensuring some
minimum quality of the kernel, but in many cases we could try better.
And when there's a good reason for a kernel policy, then code that
violates this policy is not a "very good reason" for anything.
> - code which its author is unable and/or unwilling to convert to
> kernel coding standards
> - code whose author is unable and/or unwilling to defend it on LKML
>...
That's their fault, and definitely not a "very good reason" for making
life easier for them.
> Thanks,
> Tilman
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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