Re: Reasons for Inclusion

Previous message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Reasons for Inclusion"
In reply to: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Reasons for Inclusion"
Next in thread: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Reasons for Inclusion"
Next in thread: Jesse Pollard: "Re: Reasons for Inclusion"
Reply: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Reasons for Inclusion"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

listuserat_private

I don't understand this. is there some reason the patch should _not_ be
included? I mean it's not like people have to use it, and in any event most
people now run vendor supplied kernels which are nicely buyilt/trimmed/etc
anyways.

If it provides useful functionality to a lot of people (it does, especially
with LIDS 2.0.0 and NSA SELinux moving to it) and doesn't fuck up the kernel
tree, logic, etc., sounds ok for inclusion to me.

Or maybe I just don't get it it. Whatever.

If you really don't like it you can fork linux and do it your way.

Kurt Seifried, kurtat_private
A15B BEE5 B391 B9AD B0EF
AEB0 AD63 0B4E AD56 E574
http://seifried.org/security/

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module