Quoting Chris Wright ([email protected]):
> * Serge E. Hallyn ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Sigh, as much as I would *like* to stay out of this (I don't
> > use modules at all on any system where I can avoid it), won't
> > it make development - and especially testing - of new lsms
> > much more painful and therefore less likely?
>
> Dev, hopefully not. Testing, well, perhaps.
>
> > I realize there has been a dearth of new LSMs to date, but if
> > for instance a new solaris 10 based capability module were written,
> > well, people would want to be able to
> >
> > rmmod capability
> > modprobe cap_prm
>
> The problem is it's not necessarily even safe to do rmmod at all.
> And modprobe may require extra labelling, or extra checks for
> unlabelled objects (perhaps not so much for your example).
Right, and given that it's trivial for the author of an LSM which
shouldn't be modular to make the LSM a boolean config rather than
tristate, it doesn't seem like a good reason to take away the
ability to have LSM modules.
-serge
-
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/
[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]
