Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > Well here it is... it's an updated version of Stephen > Smalley's repost (thanks for the patch Stephen). The > patch doesn't fix all our problems but it does improve > our situation considerably as it will continue to make > LSM an option for us. We would, of course, like the > entire patch to be committed but we aren't expecting that > to happen. Most of the changes are independent of each > other so it is not necessary to have the entire patch > committed (at least not at once :-)). Some changes, like > to fs/namei.c:permission(), are both simple and critical > to our needs so please don't reject these changes because > of other more intrusive ones. This is a key component of our position, and I encourage all to consider it. Richard endorsed Stephen's original patch when it came out on August 22, but there was little activity then. Lachlan has updated it, but not made any major changes. We can work individual issues, and are certainly willing to back off on especially contentious details. Thanks all. -- Casey Schaufler Manager, Trust Technology, SGI caseyat_private voice: 650.933.1634 casey_pat_private Pager: 888.220.0607 _______________________________________________ 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 : Wed Sep 05 2001 - 09:36:35 PDT