[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <54536B5B.1050604@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:58:35 +0100
From: Karol Lewandowski <k.lewandowsk@...sung.com>
To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Ryan Lortie <desrt@...rt.ca>,
Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie@...labora.co.uk>,
daniel@...que.org, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
"casey.schaufler@...el.com" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
marcel@...tmann.org, tixxdz@...ndz.org,
javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk, alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Add kdbus implementation
On 2014-10-31 00:13, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>> The core calls are already mediated by LSM today, right? We don't want
>>> anyone to be parsing the data stream through an LSM, that idea got
>>> rejected a long time ago as something that is really not a good idea.
>>
>> Parsing data is out of question, of course, but this is not what we were
>> proposing.
>
> Why is it out of the question. If it's a socket you can just a BPF filter
> on it, so why can't kdbus support similar basic functionality ?
Fair point. I think that none of us simply considered this till now.
Thanks
--
Karol Lewandowski, Samsung R&D Institute Poland
--
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