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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 1 Mar 2009 23:45:49 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <>
Cc:	Toshiharu Harada <>,
	Tetsuo Handa <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #15 0/8] TOMOYO Linux


> > Yes. maybe ioctl() is worse, but I don't think c-like language parser
> > in kernel is acceptable.
> for just clarification to me.
> IIUC, many developers said UNNECESSARY parser is BAD (yes, I also think so),
> but nobody said any parser is bad.
> Therefore, I think point is that the patch have enough reasonable reason or not.
> and, I thought "pavel, good job. you're right" at you oppositing time because
> tomoyo did't explain any reason at that time.
> However, they changed. the patch description of the "[TOMOYO #15 3/8] Common functions for TOMOYO Linux."
> explain the reason.
> for me, I feel it's reasonable reason. then I didn't oppose current tomoyo posting.
> So, I don't understand which you oppose
>    (1) ANY parser is bad.
>    (2) current description still don't explain enough reason.
> May I ask you?

I'm not sure if I've seen all the TOMOYO patches... But from what I've
seen of TOMOYO design, putting the parser into kernel was "just
because"; it did not have any good reason. I hate to say that, but
AppArmor was better designed there.
(cesky, pictures)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists