Re: My patch

Previous message: jmjonesat_private: "Benchmark Results: lsm-2001_06_20-..."
In reply to: Crispin Cowan: "Re: My patch"
Next in thread: Steven M. Kramer: "Introduction"
Reply: Steven M. Kramer: "Introduction"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Valdis.Kletnieksat_private

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:47:18 PDT, Crispin Cowan said:
> So, if honeypots can make use of LSM, that's great.  But I don't believe we
> should enlarge or complicate the LSM patch to support honeypots, because the
> widely-deployed cost:benefit ratio isn't there.

Agree here.  If we can support honeypots with little/no changes, let's go
for it.  But if we have to draw the line at 95% support and make the honeypots
use a kernel patch for the other 5% in order to fulfill the *main* goal,
that's what we have to do.

However, David Wagner and Titus Winters have apparently been corresponding
on this, and come up with a different approach.  Any honeypot experts out
there other than Titus, who can say what they would want/need from LSM?
Perhaps other issues can be creatively addressed as well....
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech