On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Greg KH wrote: > No, the goals of this project are to simply get the needed hooks into > the kernel to allow others to build modules to do all of what you > described. It's up to the individual module creators to work together > in the way you mention to achieve the goals you wish to see. It's not > the goal of this project to do that, but only to give them the ability > to do that in the future. > > Did that make sense? > It makes some sense, but falls short of being really useful as a set of goals; or as a definition of the LSM interface. What are the "needed hooks"? Define "need": a trick question because the "need" is, by definition, decided by consensus (or so it seems.) This seems to be the primary area for debate. As far as the idea of "leaving it to the module developer(s):", that is currently the situation. Unfortunately, any module developers building systems that don't fit the current model must do their own patch and use the LSM hooks in a "subset" manner or, possibly, just patch the kernel completely otherwise. There are better ways to tackle the "first problem" and still acknowlege the "not tackled problems". 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jul 13 2001 - 13:39:23 PDT