Re: What went wrong with LSM, was: Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59

crispinat_private

Pete Zaitcev wrote:

>I used to be super irritated by separate lists. Now I'm a member
>of linux-usb-devel, uml-devel, sparclinux, and god knows what else.
>Yes, they are unavoidable. Still, it is important to keep linux-kernel
>at least somewhat informed. IMHO.
>
LKML was kept at least somewhat informed, IMHO:

    * LSM announced April 11, 2001
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=98695004126478&w=4>
    * Should there be separate lists for module development?
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=98695659813419&w=4>
          o Probably
            <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=98701977623500&w=4>
    * Discussion of the "DAC-out" design option appears in LKML July 12,
      2001
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=99497020101496&w=4>
    * LSM entangled in discussion of whether binary-only modules should
      be permitted, September 24, 2001
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100134989121896&w=4>
    * Syscall 223 provisionally reserved for LSM
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100255709403906&w=4>
    * LSM mentioned as related to extended attributes project
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100509197600341&w=4>
    * Does LSM conflict with accessfs? January 16, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101120760212957&w=4>
          o No, it does not
            <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101138310816232&w=4>
    * LSM in Guillaume's big list of 2.5 stuff, January 23, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101176727007672&w=4>
    * LSM in Marc-Christian Petersen's forked kernel, May 21, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102201919806027&w=4>
    * LSM interfacing to extended attributes, June 28, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102527059400830&w=4>
    * First LSM patch into Linus' tree, July 16, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102677797911383&w=4>
          o There are lots of these subsequently, so I won't cite them all
    * Racing with module load/unload affects LSM too, September 12, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103181033207587&w=4>
    * HCH takes issue with LSM, September 26, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103307580006067&w=4>
    * LSM hook style changes from low-cost hooks to no-cost configurable
      hooks, October 16, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103472694817532&w=4>
    * LSM and GPL requirement for modules, October 17, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103486544115996&w=4>
    * Remove the LSM sys_security call, October 17, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103488104604175&w=4>
    * LSM changed so that module does not have to provision every hook
      by providing a default action, December 1, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103872797618899&w=4>
    * The start of this flame-war, February 5, 2002
      <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104441899708408&w=4>

Crispin

-- 
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX                             http://wirex.com/~crispin/
Recruiting for Linux kernel and glibc developers:  http://immunix.org/jobs.html