[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: LSM conversion to static interface

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Thomas Fricaccia wrote:
> But then I noticed that, while the LSM would remain in existence, it was
> being closed to out-of-tree security frameworks. Yikes! Since then,
> I've been following the rush to put SMACK, TOMOYO and AppArmor
> "in-tree".

Yeah, it did come up. Andrew, when he sent it on to me, said that the SuSE
people were ok with it (AppArmor), but I'm with you - I applied it, but
I'm also perfectly willing to unapply it if there actually are valid
out-of-tree users that people push for not merging.

So Í don't think this is settled in any way - please keep discussing, and
bringing it up. I'm definitely not in the camp that thinks that LSM needs
to be "controlled", but on the other hand, I'm also not going to undo that
commit unless there are good real arguments for undoing it (not just
theoretical ones).

For example, I do kind of see the point that a "real" security model might
want to be compiled-in, and not something you override from a module. Of
course, I'm personally trying to not use any modules at all, so I'm just
odd and contrary, so whatever..

Real usage scenarios with LSM modules, please speak up!

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: 2007-10-18 04:21    [W:0.106 / U:3.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site