Re: Making forward progress

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Wed Aug 15 2001 - 09:12:31 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Making forward progress"

    Theodore Tso wrote:
    > On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 08:02:56PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote:
    > >
    > > While there is resistance to conditional code, I would like to point out
    > > as a "base" that applying the patch or NOT applying the patch is a
    > > "condition"... the difference is a Y/N/M answer in make config or a
    > > download and one line of command.
    > >
    > > ....
    > >
    > > 3) MACROS are not really necessary in the current model.  All the hooks
    > > are  "out negative"... by which I mean that if you don't patch the kernel
    > > at all, there's no cost.  Therefore, macros are not necessary.... just
    > > make the whole ball of wax optional.
    > OK, I think we have a failure to communicate here.
    It's not you, Ted.  JMJones is, er, "unique" in his viewpoint of treating LSM
    as a patch.  We really do seek to have LSM accepted into the mainline kernel.
    IMHO, the "patch" approach is useless.  We might as well revert to
    distributing individual patches for our projects.
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:
    Available for purchase:
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 15 2001 - 09:13:35 PDT