On Wed, 25 May 2005, Crispin Cowan wrote: > >And here, I completely agree. In fact, I suspect the SELinux guys agree > >as well. I think Stephen and James are stating they've created someting > >which can adapt to the requirements, and are simply questioning whether > >SELinux can supplant LSM as the 'general mechanism.' > > > That is the notion that I take issue with. > > I only said it once before, so for clarity: if having our module in-tree > is what matters, then I am happy to do it. It's what matters in terms of considering if LSM should remain to support your module. Whether SELinux should be adopted as the general access control framework for Linux is another issue. - James -- James Morris <jmorris@private>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu May 26 2005 - 07:36:55 PDT