On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:14:39AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > > No we don't need any such "uniform standard". > > > > You need a standard for _your_ user applications to determine if _your_ > > security module is currently loaded. And since you wrote both of them, > > and control both of them, you're set. > > Actually, I would like to offer multiple policies to my > customers, perhaps even SELinux as well as CAPP (C2) and > LSPP (B1) to augment the "traditional" policy. I want one > version of ls, login (PAM modules, actually), su, ps, etc which > enforce and/or report based on the policy installed. > > Yes, I can do that in my own, special private copy of ls.c, > but I'd rather share it with the world. Great! Get together with those other projects and coordinate things. But don't put a burden on others who don't want to work with anyone else (probably the majority). Especially don't put that burden on the kernel programmers, they have enough problems to deal with on their own :) greg k-h _______________________________________________ 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 Aug 14 2001 - 16:28:38 PDT