Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)

--- Peter Dolding <[email protected]> wrote:


> Improvements to the single security framework are getting over looked.

Please post proposed patches.

>   I would have personally though selinux would have done Posix file
> capabilities as a general service to all.

Posix capabilities predate SELinux. SELinux is not interested in
Posix capabilities. 

> But no IBM had to do it.

Err, no. It was done by Andrew Morgan back in the dark ages.
Why on earth do you think IBM did it?

> ...

OK, you have all the answers. Show us some code or STFU.


Casey Schaufler
[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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: "Peter Dolding" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: "Peter Dolding" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH]bluetooth: hci_sysfs connection bus_id add support for diffrent hci device
• Next by Date: RE: [PATCH] ucc_geth: add support for netpoll
• Previous by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
• Next by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]