From: Chris Wright (chrisat_private)
Date: Thu Nov 08 2001 - 17:20:19 PST

  • Next message: Emily Ratliff: "Re: [PATCH] no longer export capability_ops and nproc_ops"

    * Casey Schaufler (caseyat_private) wrote:
    > No one seems to have voiced an objection to my suggestion
    > regarding the start of Phase II. That means everyone agrees,
    > doesn't it?
    I do not object to looking for ways to add functionality to LSM.
    Authoritatve hooks certainly fall in this category as far as I'm
    As Greg and Stephen mentioned, it's difficult to commit to
    what Phase II will look like since Phase I + acceptance could change
    things significantly.  I think the prudent direction now is continue
    refining what we have, wait for 2.5 to open, submit, evaluate criticism,
    adjust patch, goto submit...  After dust settles (assuming we get
    _something_ accepted ;-) then I'd like to look at what we can do to
    improve what's in the mainline.  This could mean trying to get all the
    hooks accepted that got turned down...perhaps it could mean working on
    authoritative/kernel out stuff...I simply don't know.
    To reiterate, I think authoritative hooks in some fashion, perhaps we can
    find a more elegant solution as we move forward, could be an LSM improvement.
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Nov 08 2001 - 17:27:49 PST