Re: [patch 5/12] lsm stacking v0.2: actual stacker module

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Tony Jones wrote:

> There just isn't enough content to justify a stacker specific filesystem IMHO.

It might be worth thinking about a more general securityfs as part of LSM,
to be used by stacker and LSM modules.  SELinux could use this instead of
managing its own selinuxfs.


- James
-- 
James Morris
<[email protected]>


-
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:
  • [PATCH] securityfs
    • From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 5/12] lsm stacking v0.2: actual stacker module
    • From: Tony Jones <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [patch 5/12] lsm stacking v0.2: actual stacker module
    • From: Tony Jones <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] FUSE: direct I/O cleanup
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 5/12] lsm stacking v0.2: actual stacker module
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 5/12] lsm stacking v0.2: actual stacker module
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

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