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

Hi!

> but require unreasonable interface changes. As people who care
> about security (y'all who are only from the LKML are excused) it
> is our obligation to look beyond the preconceived notions of what
> is and isn't secure. Security is subjective. It's how you feel
> about it.

<sarcasm>Hmm. So lets add automagic security module. It magically fixes
security holes, and you can feel good about it.</sarcasm>


							Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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:
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework
    • From: Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Casey Schaufler <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/3] VFS: apply coding standards to fs/ioctl.c
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/4] stringbuf: A string buffer implementation
• Previous by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
• Next by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework
• 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]