No, I don't really get the idea, and I doubt a large percentage of LD's will either, without a good reason, although I may be wrong. Was looking for a merits based discussion... perhaps with a little "intellectual distance." J. Melvin Jones |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 Valdis.Kletnieksat_private wrote: > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:45:44 EST, jmjonesat_private said: > > > " > > Since secure-systems are a minority of installed systems, and the LSM code > > works exceptionally well with a common-patch, why should this patch enter > > into the "official" code tree for Linux and not simply track it as a > > shared resource for secure-system developers, developed outside the 'stock > > kernel' tree? > > " > > s/secure-systems/multiprocessor/ > s/secure-systems/over 2G RAM/ > s/secure-systems/have RAID/ > s/secure-systems/have Gigabit ethernet/ > s/secure-systems/need disk quotas/ > s/secure-systems/non-x86 CPU/ > > You get the idea.... > > Oh.. and let's not forget that Linus said he wanted to see a patch. ;) > _______________________________________________ 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 Mar 22 2002 - 13:30:27 PST