Am 27.10.2007 20:22 schrieb Pavel Machek: > Hi! > >> but require unreasonable interface changes. As people who care >> about security (y'all who are only from the LKML are excused) it >> is our obligation to look beyond the preconceived notions of what >> is and isn't secure. Security is subjective. It's how you feel >> about it. > > <sarcasm>Hmm. So lets add automagic security module. It magically fixes > security holes, and you can feel good about it.</sarcasm> Send patch. -- Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: [email protected] Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework
- References:
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- From: Casey Schaufler <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Align PCI memory regions to page size (4K) - Fix
- Next by Date: No module symbols loaded - kernel modules not enabled.
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- Next by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework
- Index(es):
 |