On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Greg KH wrote: > A branch of a patch, and I thought I had heard of everything :) > Fine, all the lsm work is opensource, and if it doesn't meet your needs > in certain ways, feel free to change it for your own usages. Just > respect the current license and everyone will be happy. Not to 'tell tales out of school', but this is a very strong possibility, imho, at this point. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing. What I'd RATHER see is this: LSM presents "truely general" patch to 2.5. It gets accepted. All future kernels have this functionality inherent, and patches become relative to THAT standard. My concern, generally, is that LSM may be "too narrow" and not get accepted into the kernel proper, or that a branch solution may get presented simultaneously that addresses more generality. SELinux has released a good patch to a fairly current version, and Wirex, et al, may do so soon (we're close to the "implementable limit" for LSM for many pre-existant security solutions.) I don't know. I am somewhat concerned about Linus and the KDs evaluation and how heavily the "limitations" may weigh. Perhaps I'm way off base, but I'd feel more comfortable being "arguably right" than being "arguably minimal." I hope that the list sees this as being a pro-LSM concern and not just random noise. > > greg k-h > 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 : Sat Sep 01 2001 - 19:57:28 PDT