Re: [patch] [sg]etaffinity hooks

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 00:47:15 PDT

  • Next message: James Morris: "Re: [PATCH] allocation priority parameter for skb_alloc_security()"

    Greg KH wrote:
    
    >You do realize that lots of kernel programmers read this list, and that
    >the archives are searchable?
    >
    >Any argument that you are going to try to make, that involves hiding
    >information or discussions that you have had in public, aren't going to
    >go very far :)
    >
    Yes, I thought about that. It is not my intent to hide anything. The 
    idea is to recognize some values (inhibiting covert channels) as being 
    valid for us (LSM) and not valid for the LKML crowd, and other values 
    (preserving process integrity) as being of actual interest to the LKML.
    
    The important distinction here is that the covert channel value is 
    *uninteresting* to the LKML crowd. Actually hiding information would 
    only be necessary if a particular feature we were pushing had a serious 
    defect. I would not push a feature if I knew it had an actual defect.
    
    Crispin
    
    -- 
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX                      http://wirex.com/~crispin/
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
    Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
    
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 : Thu Oct 10 2002 - 00:48:31 PDT