On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 07:23:16PM -0400, schaufler-ca.com - Casey Schaufler wrote: > > From: James Morris <jmorris@private> > > To: "schaufler-ca.com - Casey Schaufler" > > Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] EVM and SLIM LSM modules > > > Which achieves what, exactly? > > Some valueable policy that the developer wants. > Why are you jumping all over it? There was > considerable hew and cry a while back that there > were no policies other than SELinux available > for LSM. Well, here are two. Gawd, I hope we > don't replay that same arguements from the > last go-round. I'm a bit with Casey here. I'm sure there is a valid debate over (the technical merits of) this patch, but I don't see it in the above. - LSM should be removed and replaced by SELinux because there are no other users. - Whoa, a proposal for another user, why would you want that when you can have SELinux. The party invite is out, but the bouncers at the door seem mightly surly :-) Tony
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Oct 17 2005 - 22:47:10 PDT