Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59

Previous message: Stephen D. Smalley: "RE: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59"
In reply to: Crispin Cowan: "Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59"
Next in thread: Dave Jones: "Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59"
Next in thread: David Wagner: "Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59"
Reply: Dave Jones: "Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

davidsenat_private

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Crispin Cowan wrote:

> And I actually like that plan. But I still believe it to be too radical 
> for 2.6. It has many nice properties, but is much more invasive to the 
> kernel. I think it is a very interesting idea for 2.7, and should be 
> floated past the maintainers who will be impacted to see if it has a 
> hope in hell.

Too radical? After the modules rewrite how could anything short of a
rewrite in another language be too radical. At least a unified set of
security hooks would be a feature which would be immediately useful and
easy to understand. The benefits of the module changes are not as obvious.

With MS pushing their own security initiative, which seems to be building
computers which only run their os, this would have been a really good
feature from a mindshare perspective. 

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsenat_private>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.