On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 6:55 AM, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:50:29PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
>> I currently have an LSM that only handles permissions for socket_bind
>> and socket_listen, I load it and then "capability" as secondary on
>> boot - but now I can't because the LSM framework is now just the LS
>> framework.
>>
>> Why can't this "static LSM" change be a Kconfig option?
>> (I don't want to have to maintain my own reverted copy of security/,
>> or compile this into the kernel because then I can't ever modify and
>> reload it without rebooting.)
>
> Let's start with the more important questions:
>
> Did you submit your LSM for inclusion into the kernel?
>
> If yes, why wasn't it accepted?
> If no, why not?
Those are important questions, no doubt. However, that does not
address Simon's question. Especially in light of Linus' statement:
"I'm also perfectly willing to unapply it if there actually are
valid out-of-tree users that people push for not merging."
It seems that, whether submitted (and or accepted) into the kernel
or not, Simon has the obligation to respond to Linus' challenge.
-adam
-
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]
