On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 08:05:13PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > > > > > > The MAC/DAC ordering seems to be resolved (i.e. WireX hasn't complained, > > > and they were the only ones that seemed to mind in the first place.) > > > > Totally outside the specifics of this hook... WHEN?!?! > > > > Please respond with references to the the appropriate posts to this list > > that "decided" that. Personally, I'd like to review them. You may be > > right, but some of us missed those references. > > No one has said anything about this in quite some time, so I guessed > that the parties that didn't like the current situation have either > learned to like it, or have been asleep. :) That may be true, but I have decided to be silent on this issue NOT from any belief it's not important, but from the belief that LSM will not listen and any arguments contrary to those held by "the powers that be" (including Greg) would be dismissed, which is what seems to have happened in this case. Others may have elected to stay silent for other reasons. It would seem to me that 1 comment FOR (a proposal) vs. no response contrary, would be a 1-0 majority *FOR*... except there appears to be a veto/trump card working here that, honestly, I can't say that I believe has worked toward "building a better mousetrap". A VETO is not a vote against... it's just a judgement, unless it contains persuasive arguments supporting the position. You explicitly stated "i don't like it", so, why not? Let's discuss it. Use argument rather than override. J. Melvin Jones > > > greg k-h > > _______________________________________________ > linux-security-module mailing list > linux-security-moduleat_private > http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module > _______________________________________________ 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 - 17:28:31 PDT