Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)

On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > I'm trying to compile a list of all known external modules and drivers
> > and work to get them included in the main kernel tree to help prevent
> > these kinds of things.  If you know of any that are not on the list at:
> > 	http://linuxdriverproject.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/OutOfTreeDrivers
> > please feel free to add them, or email me with the needed information
> > and I will add them to the list.
> 
> That's certainly helpful, but I still think there will always be
> a number of external modules that cannot be merged right now or at
> all, and deliberately making life difficult for out-of-tree code
> maintainers in order to coerce them into submitting their code for
> inclusion in the kernel will not work, it'll only create bad
> feelings.

Do you have examples of proof of this?  Read
Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt for how we already make
out-of-tree code developer's lives hell :)

thanks,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • eradicating out of tree modules (was: Linux Security *Module* Framework)
    • From: Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Simon Arlott <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
    • From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface
    • From: "Simon Arlott" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Simon Arlott <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
• Next by Date: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
• Previous by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
• Next by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]