On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:20:08PM -0500, jmjonesat_private wrote: > I disagree. The code submitted BOTH addresses the current needs and > "vaguely anticipated future needs" (which I shall define as VAFN). What is the "current needs" given that selinux is the only module actually using it and it's neither in a mergeable shape nor is it legally clear whether it can be merged? > Open your mind. LSM supports both all current solutions for object-level > security AND provides a valid basis for moving Linux toward providing, AS > AN OPTION, true security. Personally, I don't think LSM is the "be all > and end all" of a security interface, at this point, but I *do* think it's > the best first-draft of a system that can lead to that end. you don't get tru security by adding hooks. security needs a careful design and more strict access control policy can but don't have to be part of that design. > What's your REAL problem? Somebody stepping on your territory? The real problem is adding mess to the kernel. _______________________________________________ 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 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 12:07:53 PST