On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected, and had
> >examples of their real-world use to step forward and explain their use,
> >and that I explicitly mentioned that this is something we can easily
> >re-visit.
> >
>
> I do have a pseudo LSM called "multiadm" at
> http://freshmeat.net/p/multiadm/ , quoting:
>
Based on Linus' criteria, this appears to be a case for reverting the
static LSM patch.
Jan, I remember you posting this last year and IIRC, there were really
only coding style issues to be addressed. There were some review queries
and suggestions (e.g. decomposing CAP_SYS_ADMIN), but no deal-breakers --
certainly not now that security architecture and security model objections
are out of bounds.
So, I would suggest reposting the code for upstream inclusion, which
would be better at least in terms of upstream maintenance, as your code
will be visible in the tree.
- 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/
[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]
