Re: New stacker performance results

From: Chris Wright (chrisw@private)
Date: Wed May 25 2005 - 21:46:21 PDT

* James Morris (jmorris@private) wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > - using SELinux as the shared framework and directly integrating them
> > into it so that they can leverage its policy abstractions as well and
> > serve to reinforce the access controls rather than being redundant.
> Given that nobody has come up with an upstream alternative to SELinux 
> since the merging of LSM, this should certainly be considered.
> In fact, there has recently been some discussion about removing LSM
> completely and just using SELinux directly.

Yes, it was in the context of lack of meaningful in-tree modules.
A context which is certainly important.  However, there's enough activity
in the area that dropping LSM would be a step backwards.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed May 25 2005 - 21:46:50 PDT