On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Crispin Cowan wrote: > jmjonesat_private wrote: > > >1) you've met every condition in Linus' original requirement (included the > >imbedded systems comment), 100% and without question. > > > Linus made a back-of-the-napkin scale proposal, and now we are (roughly) > 5000 man-hours into development. We know a lot more now than we did last > march, and so assuredly have done some things differntly than Linus > imagined we would. Whether these deviations are acceptable to him is > something we will learn when we present the work. Yes, and he will want (and the LD's will want) more information than "we think we did this right." I can (and have, honestly (embarrassed-giggle)) spent 5000 or 1,000,000 hours doing something that is "wrong." That's a fear here, but I don't think it's unarguable that LSM is a good solution... I'd just like to "pre-argue" some of the merits. > > >2) you're not willing to actually sell the patch on it's merits, beyond > >the assertion that it "meets a (differingly interprettable) statement by > >Linus"? > > > Hardly. We're just not willing to have that debate *again* here in this > forum. It is redundant. The next interesting form of this debate will be > when LSM meets the non-LSM people who need to accept it. But discussing > again here is just incestuous intellectual wanking :-) No, it's not redundant. This forum has made decisions, and many of them have either been argued or defaulted. We have a product, based on all those decisions. You're saying that self-evaluation is not valuable. We all set out to do things, but sometimes we deflect and diverge... this discussion is *critical* to getting LSM accepted, IMHO. > > >Is Linux really that "ingrown", that two people make all the decisions? I > >don't know Alan, but I would never believe that of Linus. > > > Linux's development process is hierarchical. Linus gets the final say of > what goes into Linus' source tree, but he is influenced by the opinions > of trusted associates, e.g. Alan Cox. This is not "ingrown." > Yes, and you believe "we have the top 1 or 2 levels" so everybody else will have to argue against from a position of impotence? Maybe. > >Or, can nobody write a paper that proves the merit? > > > A paper is the wrong format to make this case. We have written a paper > to document the LSM design, but it is likely to be peripheral to the > upcoming debate. > Well, what's the right format? > >Gonna be a tough fight, > >If that's the case, > > > We know, but this discussion is not helping, just distracting. No. You're creating a product... a product that will have to be accepted by a group larger than those creating it. You're near the end, I think, so a little "what if they say" is useful, now, for practice and/or self-evaluation. Is that not true? > > Crispin > > -- > Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. > Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com > Security Hardened Linux Distribution: http://immunix.org > Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html > > Fear of Evaluation is a Suspicious Attribute, Sincerely, 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/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 - 14:05:59 PST