* Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Seth Arnold wrote: > > The last section of the overview document for LSM (in > Documentation/DocBook/lsm.tmpl) discusses the current state of the > capabilities module, why the LSM project has not yet moved the capability > fields into the security blobs, and what additional changes to the base > kernel would be necessary to move these fields. The current capabilities > module is sufficient to provide the same functionality as the original > built-in support with minimal overhead, and it allows for easy stacking > with other security modules since it doesn't use the security fields. > Hence, I'm satisfied with it. However, if the kernel developers decide > that they want the capability fields moved into the security blobs, I'm ok > with that as well. small reminder, this in in accordance with the original 'spec' linus provided. > > Not on this list, but also important -- higher level documentation. The > > SELinux team put together some decent enough high level docs; perhaps > > they should be reviewed again with the light of trying to provide more > > background/history/context for the project? (It might be the docs are > > fine enough as they are. :) > > For revisions to the existing lsm.tmpl document, it seems appropriate to > keep discussions and patches on this mailing list, since it is integrated > into the BitKeeper tree. i think seth meant "not on the above list of things to do, but..." -chris _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 08 2001 - 10:18:31 PDT