On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > It adds infrastructure to implement syscalls without peer review. > And then it ends being crap like the selinux syscalls. Yes, I think you've made your point. Go ahead, remove sys_security. We can look into revising the SELinux syscalls, hopefully with some constructive suggestions from people, to make them more acceptable. Feel free to send specific suggestions, or at least explain further why you hate the current ones. > And exactly these hooks harm. They are all over the place, have performance > and code size impact and mess up readability. Why can't you just maintain > an external patch like i.e. mosix folks that nead similar deep changes? LSM only came into existence based on Linus' statements about what he would be willing to consider for inclusion in the mainstream kernel. Of course, if LSM has diverged from Linus' expectations, then that divergence should be corrected. But that doesn't mean that LSM should be dropped out entirely, just pruned and refined. If the whole of LSM has to be maintained as a separate patch, then the various security projects have largely wasted their time transitioning to it. -- Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs ssmalleyat_private _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 18 2002 - 10:16:25 PDT