Re: New LSM patch for consideration

jmjonesat_private

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Stephen Smalley wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 jmjonesat_private wrote:
> 
> > I've been trying to apply it to an original 2.4.5 kernel, and 
> > get several errors.  Is it relative to 
> > 
> > 2.4.6-pre3
> > 2.4.5-original
> > 2.4.5-lsm (with the last released patch).
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.  My patch was relative to the "head" of
> the WireX BitKeeper tree in order to allow them to easily integrate
> it.  The WireX BitKeeper tree is difficult to characterize -
> at one time, it was consistent with the 5/30 released patch,
> but WireX then committed several changes that never showed
> up in a released patch and WireX then merged with 2.4.6-pre3.
> Anyway, Chris Wright ended up asking for a 2.4.5-based patch 
> to allow them to create a new LSM patch based on a stable version.
> For your viewing pleasure, here is my patch relative to the 5/30
> released patch.  This includes both my changes and changes made by 
> WireX between the released patch and the 2.4.6-pre3 merge.  Oh,
> but this doesn't include my recent capabilities-related patch.
> 

Thanks.  Since capabilities may now be "problem next", I'm not worried 
about it for the moment.

> > Due to licensing issues, I don't have access to the bitkeeper tree at this
> > time.  Where and how should I apply the patch to see what the results are?
> 
> I don't understand why you can't use BitKeeper to access the lsm tree.
> The license shouldn't matter for just viewing the lsm tree.
> 

I contacted the people at BitKeeper.  They were very helpful, but,
clearly, BitKeeper is not public domain, nor "prestinely GPL".   My
support of LSM is hosted on a MIPS Nevada 1.0 processor (admittedly olde),
but there are issues with introducing BitKeeper into my cyberspace because I 
do not exclusively (or primarily) support open software.  (Okay, now I am
"evil" to the majority of the lurkers on this list. :))

BitKeeper is the best choice for LSM, but it is not necessarily the best 
choice for me.  

Patches against 2.4.5 or 2.4.6-pre# are instantly usable to me.  I will
look forward to the "official patch" against those, and thanks for the 
the "unofficial patch" that I can use.

> --
> Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
> ssmalleyat_private
> 

Sincerely,
J. Melvin Jones

|>------------------------------------------------------
||  J. MELVIN JONES            jmjonesat_private 
|>------------------------------------------------------
||  Microcomputer Systems Consultant  
||  Software Developer
||  Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration
||  Network and Systems Administration
|>------------------------------------------------------
||  http://www.jmjones.com/
|>------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module