Quoting Greg KH <gregat_private>: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:06:14AM +0100, Mike Wray wrote: > > I'd like the module hooks to stay too. > > Heh, sorry, I took them out last Friday (remember, > linux-security-module-commits show these things if you care about > changes to the tree) > > > Control over which modules can be loaded is an important part > > of controlling a system. LSM security applications will want to > > do that. If you want concrete users, we expect to be one. > > Great, when you publish your module, we can revisit these hooks. > Sound > fair? > > thanks, > > greg k-h > _______________________________________________ > linux-security-module mailing list > linux-security-moduleat_private > http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module > So you are saying that frequent changes to the base kernel (once LSM becomes part of the mainstream kernel) are ok and that Linus would be happy to have new hooks added ,whenever there is a person that has a new LSM idea.But he is not happy with the idea that there would be some hooks that are not used at the time of the merge. Maybe the LSM people should give it some more time before cutting out hooks. Why dont you keep it simple and stick to the original LSM design? If you really think that some hooks should not be there, publish a new paper called the "New LSM framework" and then change the framework.The original paper is getting a bit out of date now. The framework is drifting slowly from truly generic to 5 or so existing LSMs specific. Thank you -- Demetrios Lambrou http://crazylinux.net ---------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 : Tue Oct 01 2002 - 03:02:21 PDT