[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:0.034 / U:19.192 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site