Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:11:16 -0700 | From | Tony Jones <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview |
| |
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 08:09:17AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting grundig (grundig@teleline.es): > > El Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:32:30 -0700, > > Crispin Cowan <crispin@novell.com> escribi?: > > > > > Our controls on changing the name space have rather poor granularity at > > > the moment. We hope to improve that over time, and especially if LSM > > > evolves to permit it. This is ok, because as Andi pointed out, there are > > > currently few applications using name spaces, so we have time to improve > > > the granularity. > > > > Wouldn't have more sense to improve it and then submit it instead of the > > contrary? At least is the rule which AFAIK is applied to every feature > > going in the kernel, specially when there's an available alternative > > which users can use meanwhile (see reiser4...) > > hah, that's funny > > When people do that, they are rebuked for not submitting upstream. At > least this way, we can have a discussion about whether the approach > makes sense at all.
When an out of tree user is requesting a change for which it will likely be the only user (such that it can make it in tree), caution is warranted. But it does create a bit of a chicken and egg conundrum for the proposer.
At least this is the way it's always seemed to me (re: the requested VFS/LSM changes). Anyways, it's not an issue and there isn't a lot of point dwelling over past LSM history. I 100% agree with Serge, discussion first about the approach is definately the way to go.
Tony - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |