Re: Patch Acceptance Procedure

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 23:44:43 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: Patch Acceptance Procedure"

    Casey Schaufler wrote:
    
    > We keep cutting down the amount of change we ask for to support
    > our policy. Richard's last patch was quite small, but included
    > fds, which some people don't see need for but which we have to
    > have, really. I feels as if our policy requirements are
    > being sacrificed in the name of "concensus", when in fact
    > there is no serious objection, only that some others
    > "don't see the need" for what we require.
    
    That depends on the "policy."  Audit was placed in Phase 2, because if we
    put it in Phase 1, the whole of LSM will likely be rejected out of hand.
    Richard's post seemed to be trying to put some audit stuff back into Phase
    1.  If you can contrive some access control need for fd's, then we've got
    something to go on.
    
    Crispin
    
    --
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
    Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 Jul 24 2001 - 01:45:30 PDT