lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [TOMOYO #6 retry 02/21] Add struct vfsmount to struct task_struct.
Quoting Kentaro Takeda (takedakn@nttdata.co.jp):
> Hello.
>
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > I must say I personally prefer the apparmor approach.
> No problem.
>
> > But I'd recommend
> > you get together and get this piece pushed on its own, whichever version
> > you can agree on.
> TOMOYO can use AppArmor's patch.

Right, but one will be preferred by the community - and while I have my
own preference, I wouldn't put too much faith on that, rather talk with
the apparmor folks, look over the lkml logs for previous submissions,
and then decide.

> > Yes it needs a user, but at this point I would think
> > both tomoyo and apparmor have had enough visibility that everyone knows
> > the intended users.
> Not only AppArmor and TOMOYO but also SELinux want to use "vfsmount".
> (http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=120005904211942&w=2)
>
> > It seems to me you're both being held up by this piece, and getting
> > another full posting of either tomoyo or apparmor isn't going to help,
> > so hopefully you can combine your efforts to get this solved.
> We welcome AppArmor's vfsmount patches, but I wonder why AppArmor's
> vfsmount patches are not merged yet.
>
> What prevents AppArmor's vfsmount patches from merging into -mm tree?

I don't recall what objections remained at the last posting. Far as I
know there may have simply been no responses due to patch fatigue. (it
happens)

-serge


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-16 15:43    [W:0.051 / U:7.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site