On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 22:42 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > * James Morris (jmorris@private) wrote: > > (I would argue that his "truly generic" requirement was fulfilled by > > SELinux). > > Hehe, clearly it wasn't or we wouldn't be where we are now. Recall, LSM > came out of rejecting SELinux. I think that was more of a perception/communication problem than anything else. Linus seemed to hear the SELinux talk at the 2001 Kernel Summit as SELinux == TE rather than SELinux == flexible MAC architecture that can support TE, MLS, and other models easily. No criticism intended, likely just poor communication on our part, but it did seem like a misunderstanding at the time. -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu May 26 2005 - 06:47:08 PDT