lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: LSM conversion to static interface


    On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
    >
    > Non-trivial modules (i.e., practically everything beyond capabilities) become
    > effective only after loading policy, anyway. If you can load policy, you can
    > as well first load a security module without making the system insecure.

    I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected, and had
    examples of their real-world use to step forward and explain their use,
    and that I explicitly mentioned that this is something we can easily
    re-visit.

    But I also note that you did no such thing, neither has anybody else.

    The fact is, security people *are* insane. You just argue all the time,
    instead fo doing anything productive. So please don't include me in the Cc
    on your insane arguments - instead do something productive and I'm
    interested.

    Ok? That was the whole point of LSM in the first place. I'm *not*
    interested in getting roped into your insane arguments. I'm interested in
    moving forward and having real examples of real use and code. Until then,
    this issue is closed. I thought I had made that clear already, but
    apparently not clear enough.

    So I repeat: we can undo that commit, but I will damn well not care one
    whit about yet another pointless security model flamewar.

    Linus
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-19 22:43    [W:0.029 / U:59.268 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site