RE: GPL only usage of security.h

Previous message: Chris Wright: "Re: [PATCH] fix for 2.4.10 initialization"
Maybe in reply to: Greg KH: "GPL only usage of security.h"
Next in thread: KRAMER,STEVEN (HP-USA,ex1): "RE: GPL only usage of security.h"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Stephen_Smalleyat_private

> What wasn't mentioned was the fact that this would allow 
> people to write
> closed source security modules for Linux.  I was just trying to
> explicitly forbid this as I realized that this might be a nasty side
> effect of us having the LSM patch in the kernel (see my previous
> comments about closed source security kernel modules.)

This is an important point, especially given the rejection by the kernel
developers of a patch a while back that had an unintentional side effect
of enabling people to provide closed source network protocol implementations
for Linux.  We don't want a similar rejection to occur for LSM.  In general,
it seems like there is increasing hostility toward closed source kernel
modules by 
the kernel developers.

From the perspective of the SELinux project, this restriction isn't a
problem,
since the SELinux module is GPL'd.  If imposing this restriction will help
in
gaining acceptance for LSM by the kernel developers, then I'm all for it.

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module