What about the possibility of creating an authorative branch in the LSM repository which is maintained by SGI? This would allow collaborative work in this area to continue, and the authorative version of LSM can be proposed separately as a later phase. I agree with Casey that it is important for LSM to try and be useful to projects which need more than the current restrictive hooks. I'm not sure how this can be achieved, but believe that it is a goal worth working towards. Keep in mind that the entire process of introducing LSM to the kernel may take a considerable amount of time, and will involve working closely with core kernel developers to address any issues raised. A second phase including authorative hooks would be an extension of this process. As a comparison, it took about two years for devfs to be accpeted into the kernel, generating significant controversy (which continues to flare up on a regular basis). LSM is arguably more contentious. - James -- James Morris <jmorrisat_private> _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 05 2001 - 16:50:31 PST