Re: [PATCH] Authoritative hooks

From: Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private)
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 16:46:49 PDT

  • Next message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: [PATCH] Authoritative hooks"

    On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 07:31:35PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote:
    > > wtf?
    > > 
    > > /me goes screaming out of the room
    > 
    > ????? I guess I'm missing something.  A clue please?
    
    I think what Greg is getting at is that your last email asked for
    patches to be updated and released every time a new kernel is released,
    every time anyone proposes any new hooks, modifies hooks, removes hooks,
    in addition to every Friday.
    
    That is a serious amount of time spent generating patches -- time that
    could be better spent making forward progress rather than simple data
    conversions from one format to another -- because, indeed, there are
    currently three different methods for getting LSM data -- following the
    commits, following bitkeeper, and the occasional patches usually put
    together when Linus releases a new kernel or a large amount of LSM work
    has been performed.
    
    I think Greg just doesn't understand the need for Yet Another Method of
    following LSM progress. And I think I have to agree with his postulated
    position.
    
    Cheers
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Thu Aug 16 2001 - 16:46:31 PDT