Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:05:20 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: LSM conversion to static interface |
| |
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:47:36PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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.
You can also get the QA work by building your own kernel from vendor kernel sources.
E.g. the Debian distribution ships a package linux-source-2.6.18 that contains a linux-source-2.6.18.tar.bz2 with the patched 2.6.18 kernel sources Debian uses for building its kernels.
> [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]
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |