Quoting Adrian Bunk ([email protected]):
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:57:31PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting James Morris ([email protected]):
> > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's useful for some LSMs to be modular, and LSMs which are y/n options won't
> > > > have any security architecture issues with unloading at all.
> > >
> > > Which LSMs? Upstream, there are SELinux and capabilty, and they're not
> > > safe as loadable modules.
> > >
> > > > The mere fact
> > > > that SELinux cannot be built as a module is a rather weak argument for
> > > > disabling LSM modules as a whole, so please don't.
> > >
> > > That's not the argument. Please review the thread.
> >
> > The argument is 'abuse', right?
> >
> > Abuse is defined as using the LSM hooks for non-security applications,
> > right?
> >
> > It seems to me that the community is doing a good job of discouraging
> > such abuse - by redirecting the "wrong-doers" to implement proper
> > upstream solutions, i.e. taskstats, the audit subsystem, etc.
> >
> > Such encouragement seems a far better response than taking away freedoms
> > and flexibility from everyone.
>
> We are not living in a world where everyone had good intentions...
Oh no, i took a wrong turn somewhere :)
> For _some_ "wrong-doers" your approach works.
>
> But how do you convince the "wrong-doers" who do things like putting
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") into their binary-only modules and who ignore you
> and get away because noone sues them?
Do these really exist? Maybe noone sues them because noone knows who
they are...
But - note that you've changed completely the meaning of 'abuse'.
So mine was wrong?
> The spirit of the GPLv2 is to defend the freedom of the software
> (different from the spirit of the BSD licence), and considering that
> there aren't many people defending the GPLv2 copyright of the Linux
> kernel at court against abusers, making it harder for people to do the
> abuse might not be the worst choice...
Well, but you seem to be saying that the license means squat, and
resorting to making things inconvenient rather than illegal.
Now I guess if it really is accepted that that's the way it should be,
then this patch will go in.
-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]
