Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] [LSM] Stacking support for inode_init_security

From: Chris Wright (chrisw@private)
Date: Mon Aug 22 2005 - 16:14:19 PDT

Previous message: Adrian Bunk: "Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] [LSM] Stacking support for inode_init_security"
In reply to: Adrian Bunk: "Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] [LSM] Stacking support for inode_init_security"
Next in thread: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] [LSM] Stacking support for inode_init_security"
Reply: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] [LSM] Stacking support for inode_init_security"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

* Adrian Bunk (bunk@private) wrote:
> You want to build these modules always and always modular?
> 
> No matter whether the security subsystem is built modular or static?
> 
> No matter whether the user has enabled or completely disabled the 
> security subsystem?

The modules are just for testing, and shouldn't be added at all.

Previous message: Adrian Bunk: "Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] [LSM] Stacking support for inode_init_security"
In reply to: Adrian Bunk: "Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] [LSM] Stacking support for inode_init_security"
Next in thread: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] [LSM] Stacking support for inode_init_security"
Reply: serue@private: "Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] [LSM] Stacking support for inode_init_security"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Aug 22 2005 - 16:18:02 PDT