On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 13:56 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > --- Stephen Smalley <sds@private> wrote: > > > Can you point to a specific response that said that? > > Sorry, I'm not going to play that game. Then I'll assume your original statement was false. > > I don't recall > > seeing a LSM rejected by mainline for that reason. > > I have seen > > rejections due to: > > - LSMs that were ad-hoc hacks rather than general > > mechanisms, > > One man's "ad-hoc hack" is another > man's "clever solution". Possibly, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't suitable for mainline. See the realtime LSM discussions for a case study. And note that the objections to it had nothing to do with SELinux. > > - LSMs that lacked any real users. > > You're putting a chicken/egg limit > in with that one. Not my limit. See http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=109717928411882&w=2 -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Jul 05 2005 - 08:55:52 PDT