[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1228481810.3005.31.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:56:50 -0500
From: david safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)
On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 12:42 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, david safford wrote:
>
> > These hooks were for alternate integrity modules, and since
> > no one else has defended them, we have to agree that they
> > should be replaced with direct calls.
>
> If you know of other modules which are planned to be ported to this
> framework, merged upstream and supported, then this would be similar to
> the situation when LSM was initially developed.
>
> You've previously mentioned some active projects here:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/17/362
>
> Are there any definite commitments to push these upstream when the
> integrity framework is merged?
All of the projects listed in that posting were ones depending on
IMA, with no requirements for alternate modules. I do hope that there
will be other integrity modules in addition to the TPM oriented IMA,
and I do know of several research projects in this space, but I don't
know if/when any of these are planning on submission. If others are
submitted, it would certainly be simple to add the hooks back in.
dave
--
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