RE: GPL only usage of security.h

From: Smalley, Stephen (Stephen_Smalleyat_private)
Date: Mon Sep 24 2001 - 10:49:43 PDT

  • Next message: KRAMER,STEVEN (HP-USA,ex1): "RE: GPL only usage of security.h"

    > 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
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 10:50:43 PDT