Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

[Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>]

On Sep 30 2007 01:16, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> 
>>  Documentation/Smack.txt       |  104 +
>>  security/Kconfig              |    1 
>>  security/Makefile             |    2 
>>  security/smack/Kconfig        |   10 
>>  security/smack/Makefile       |    9 
>>  security/smack/smack.h        |  207 ++
>>  security/smack/smack_access.c |  345 ++++
>>  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    | 2685 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  security/smack/smackfs.c      | 1201 ++++++++++++++
>>  9 files changed, 4564 insertions(+)
>
>My major non-technical concern is that Casey Schaufler might get hit by a
>bus.  If this happens, we can remove the feature in three minutes (that
>diffstat again), but that may not be feasible if people have come to rely
>upon the feature.
>
>otoh, if a significant number of people are using smack, presumably someone
>else would step up to maintain smack post-bus.  The risk seems acceptable
>to me.

I bet that the number of people submitting patches / possibly maintaining it
is hyperbelic to the code size. Everyone that runs away from selinux's
code size and/or "complexity" is a potential smack/aa user/contributor.

>Is smack useful without a patched ls, sshd and init.d?  What is the status
>of getting those userspace patches merged?  ie: do you know who to send the
>diffs to, and are they likely to take them?

As long as one does not need to recompile userspace (like it is the case with
libselinux), it wins.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/