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
| ||
|
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