On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 04:49:48PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > No it seems not pointless. You add tons of undesigned cruft to 2.5 that > will have to be maintained through all of 2.6. unless Linus hopefully > pulls the plug soon enough. I'm tired of reading this crap every time I submit a LSM patch. I'll say it for the last time... LSM was designed and didn't just plop into existence. The group has published numerous design documents both explaining the decisions and rational behind the design and implementation of the project. They are available at lsm.immunix.org, as you probably already know. I know you don't like the implementation we currently have, but as no one has stepped up with a different implementation, that has been designed and tested to work for an extremely wide range of different security models, I suggest you stop this kind of attack. However, concrete criticism of specific implementation details, like you have done in the past is welcome, and encouraged. I'll look into your comment about coding style issues that you mentioned earlier in this thread. > You still haven't even submitted a single example that actually uses > LSM into mainline. Um, what's security/root_plug.c then? :) 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 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 14:13:37 PST