[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4724BF06.30404@imap.cc>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:55:34 +0100
From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
CC: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, 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: eradicating out of tree modules
Am 28.10.2007 15:37 schrieb Stefan Richter:
> Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter:
>>> You two are hypothesizing.
>> No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether
>> LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult
>> for out of tree security module developers.
>
> I still believe you are. From what I understood, the API change had
> technical reasons. (What I have read is that using security modules in
> the form of loadable and unloadable kernel modules didn't make sense.)
The jury is still out on that, and it's not my area of expertise
anyway. But Adrian declared that making life more difficult for
out-of-tree module developers would in itself be a legitimate
reason for such a change, and that's what I'm disputing.
--
Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (254 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists