[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47247A1C.8010406@imap.cc>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:01:32 +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 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.
> - We (most of us) change APIs to improve the kernel.
That's good. If that was consensus then this discussion would
not be necessary. What I am protesting against is attempts to
change the API purposely to obstruct out-of-tree code. That is
not a way to improve the kernel.
--
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