[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:20:08PM -0500, wrote:
> I disagree. The code submitted BOTH addresses the current needs and
> "vaguely anticipated future needs" (which I shall define as VAFN).

What is the "current needs" given that selinux is the only module actually
using it and it's neither in a mergeable shape nor is it legally clear
whether it can be merged?

> Open your mind. LSM supports both all current solutions for object-level
> security AND provides a valid basis for moving Linux toward providing, AS
> AN OPTION, true security. Personally, I don't think LSM is the "be all
> and end all" of a security interface, at this point, but I *do* think it's
> the best first-draft of a system that can lead to that end.

you don't get tru security by adding hooks. security needs a careful
design and more strict access control policy can but don't have to be part
of that design.

> What's your REAL problem? Somebody stepping on your territory?

The real problem is adding mess to the kernel.

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: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.118 / U:1.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site