On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 sarnoldat_private wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 02:16:01PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > > StackGuard appears to "rock". Why not "tie" the LSM patch in such a > > way to option it, since IMMUNIX is a major player? > > <arguably a plug> > > Well, the current patch for the Makefile regarding StackGuard is to turn > StackGuard off while compiling the kernel. :) The kernel is not > StackGuarded and should not be StackGuarded. (It is the sort of thing > that ought to be carefully coded to avoid situations where StackGuard > would help. :) > > (Never mind that the implementation of StackGuard prevents StackGuarding > the kernel anyway. StackGuard is only for userland applications. :) > > :) > > </arguably a plug> Plugs are arguable. :) No problems with ME, if they don't affect form, fit, or function and possibly direct "others" to good places. I say, put all the plugs in there you want, if they don't effect the final code. Comments/code-spam have been very, very good to me. :) See what I mean about "item #5"? :) J. Melvin Jones > > _______________________________________________ > linux-security-module mailing list > linux-security-moduleat_private > http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module > _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jun 12 2001 - 11:37:27 PDT