On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Greg KH wrote: > I'd like to merge these changes to the tree... Makes no difference to me, as long as most are able to actually patch-and-test... > Someone has pointed out that in 2.4.11-pre1, a "reserved for security > syscall" tag was placed on the syscall entry that we are currently > using. Linus has been nice enough to reserve this number for us for > now, so that any SELinux users will not go through great pains in the > future, it doesn't imply acceptance of the LSM patch at all :) Woo Hoo! At least LSM is getting noticed. I have a question: Where does LSM go from here? Since the interface is "largely done" and the documentation that is imbedded in the code is "fairly complete", what are the next few steps. When does somebody "take this to mount olympus", and what is expected at that point? What can we "lesser list participants" provide that will help in this effort. Greg, you seem to be very "in-tune" with the "way of the kernel", and since most of us want LSM included therein, I think we've maybe reached a point where "political packaging" is a valid discussion point. Any advice might be useful, at this point, imho. Not to limit this to Greg, but ... really... how does LSM get from where it is now to kernel inclusion? > > thanks, > > 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 : Fri Oct 05 2001 - 15:05:54 PDT