[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: LSM conversion to static interface
Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:24:42PM -0700, Thomas Fricaccia wrote:
>> Yes, I think Crispin has succinctly summed it up: irrevocably closing
>> the LSM prevents commercial customers from using security modules other
>> than that provided by their Linux distributor.
> Any "customer" using a security model other than provided by their Linux
> distributor instantly voided all support from that distro by doing that.
> So, since the support is gone, they can easily build their own kernels,
> with their own LSM interfaces, and get the exact same lack of support :)

Running a vendor kernel has the advantage of reusing all the QA work
that has gone into that kernel. It is very different from running
2.6.24-rc1 (or 2.6.22.x). Hence projects like centos: you don't get any
support, but the likelihood of actually requiring support is lower than
running some random kernel.

[but I agree that someone who has somehow determined that they need a
specific LSM will probably have determined that they need vendor support
as well]

error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-22 19:51    [W:0.177 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site