On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:21:49PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 05:07:06PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 01:28:28PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 01:10:37PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > > > > > > > I will not even look at the networking LSM bits until > > > > CONFIG_SECURITY=n is available. > > BTW, there's another big issues with LSM: so far all those hook > have no user in a mergeable shape. For all other additions > there is a strong need to present something mergable but LSM > doesn't. IMHO we should require a pointer to a module in mergaable > shape (i.e. certainly not selinux) for each new hook addition. Heh, require this, and oops, all of the hooks disappear :) Seriously, no, I don't agree with this. SELinux is currently being audited by a number of different companies (include some Linux distros), and after that happens, and the code is cleaned up, I think they will probably want their module merged (but I don't speak for them at all.) As for the other modules, I think the OWL-based one is good enough right now, and I have a very simple module that is in the November issue of Linux Journal that is probably clean enough to merge. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ 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 17 2002 - 09:56:36 PDT