> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-security-module-bounces@private [mailto:linux-security-module- > bounces@private] On Behalf Of Crispin Cowan > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:48 PM > To: Colin Walters > Cc: Stephen Smalley; linux-security-module@private > Subject: Re: New stacker performance results > > Colin Walters wrote: > >On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 18:23 -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote: > > > >>James Morris wrote: > >> > >>>(I would argue that his "truly generic" requirement was fulfilled by > >>>SELinux). > >>> > >>I argue that it definitely does not have such generality. A trivial > >>proof of that is that some setting may require a solution that is much > >>smaller (time, space, etc.) and thus SELinux would fail to qualify > >>precisely because of its generality. > >> > >This is a "proof"? > > > SELinux is big, slow, and complicated. Not everyone likes that. QED :) > Not to take this comment too seriously, but are you referring to the security server currently provided by SELinux which implements TE or general framework provided by SELinux (FLASK)? It doesn't seem like you are making that distinction in your comments. Karl --- Karl MacMillan Tresys Technology http://www.tresys.com (410) 290-1411 ext 134 > Crispin > > -- > Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://immunix.com/~crispin/ > Director of Software Engineering, Novell http://novell.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed May 25 2005 - 19:15:10 PDT