lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: What went wrong with LSM, was: Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59
    Pete Zaitcev wrote:

    >I used to be super irritated by separate lists. Now I'm a member
    >of linux-usb-devel, uml-devel, sparclinux, and god knows what else.
    >Yes, they are unavoidable. Still, it is important to keep linux-kernel
    >at least somewhat informed. IMHO.
    >
    LKML was kept at least somewhat informed, IMHO:

    * LSM announced April 11, 2001
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=98695004126478&w=4>
    * Should there be separate lists for module development?
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=98695659813419&w=4>
    o Probably
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=98701977623500&w=4>
    * Discussion of the "DAC-out" design option appears in LKML July 12,
    2001
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=99497020101496&w=4>
    * LSM entangled in discussion of whether binary-only modules should
    be permitted, September 24, 2001
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100134989121896&w=4>
    * Syscall 223 provisionally reserved for LSM
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100255709403906&w=4>
    * LSM mentioned as related to extended attributes project
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100509197600341&w=4>
    * Does LSM conflict with accessfs? January 16, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101120760212957&w=4>
    o No, it does not
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101138310816232&w=4>
    * LSM in Guillaume's big list of 2.5 stuff, January 23, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=101176727007672&w=4>
    * LSM in Marc-Christian Petersen's forked kernel, May 21, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102201919806027&w=4>
    * LSM interfacing to extended attributes, June 28, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102527059400830&w=4>
    * First LSM patch into Linus' tree, July 16, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102677797911383&w=4>
    o There are lots of these subsequently, so I won't cite them all
    * Racing with module load/unload affects LSM too, September 12, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103181033207587&w=4>
    * HCH takes issue with LSM, September 26, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103307580006067&w=4>
    * LSM hook style changes from low-cost hooks to no-cost configurable
    hooks, October 16, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103472694817532&w=4>
    * LSM and GPL requirement for modules, October 17, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103486544115996&w=4>
    * Remove the LSM sys_security call, October 17, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103488104604175&w=4>
    * LSM changed so that module does not have to provision every hook
    by providing a default action, December 1, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103872797618899&w=4>
    * The start of this flame-war, February 5, 2002
    <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104441899708408&w=4>

    Crispin

    --
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX http://wirex.com/~crispin/
    Recruiting for Linux kernel and glibc developers: http://immunix.org/jobs.html

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.027 / U:0.148 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site