Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:23:30 +1100 (EST) | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: Upstream first policy |
| |
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kyle McMartin wrote: >> >> I recommend you don't look at Ubuntu, we might have a lot of extra >> crud[2] in the kernel if you do. :) (Actually, shockingly less than I >> thought, just apparmor, aufs, ndiswrapper are the obvious ones.) > > Ok, so ndiswrapper falls under the "yeah, no" heading. > > But apparmor was supposed to be on the "yeah, we'll merge it" path, I > talked to somebody about it not _that_ long ago. Some of the security > people object, but they object for all the wrong reasons and I really do > think that since it's getting used, we really should merge it.
The AppArmor developer has been posting patches for review -- there's nothing stopping the code being merged except for the need to address purely technical issues raised by reviewers, which is ongoing.
See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.lsm/10443
> Although there was _some_ noise about Ubuntu trying to move away from > it.. But that may have been more of the whole FUD thing from the people > who for some unfathomable reason think that inodes are more important > than pathnames.
Hey, thanks for another random unfounded personal attack, it's really appreciated.
- James -- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
| |