[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 24 2007 19:11, Simon Arlott wrote:
>> * (I've got a list of access rules which are scanned in order until one of
>> them matches, and an array of one bit for every port for per-port default
>> allow/deny - although the latter could be removed.
> Besides the 'feature' of inhibiting port binding,
> is not this task of blocking connections something for a firewall?
So now you are criticizing his module. Arguing about the merits of
security semantics. This is exactly why Linus wanted LSM, so we don't
have to have these kinds of discussions, at least not on LKML :)

It seems to me that LSM used to be an open API. Anyone could code to it,
so you could at least try to ship a module that will load into a major
vendor's stock kernel for an important release.

Now with this change, it is effectively a closed API. You can only load
the modules that the distro vendor shipped to you. If you want
*anything* other than what RH or Novell or Canonical or Mandriva etc.
says you should want, then you have to hack the source code for your kernel.

Open source is great, and it is wonderful that you *can* hack the source
if you need to, but demanding that end users patch their source code
when all they want to do is load a module is really, really sad.

Please revert this patch. Its benefits are no where near its costs.


Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work

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: 2007-10-24 22:29    [W:0.186 / U:2.088 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site