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

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Nov 1 2007 12:51, Peter Dolding wrote:

This is above me doing code.   No matter how many fixes I do to the
core that will not fix dysfunction in the LSM section.  Strict
policies on fixing the main security model will be required.

If there is no one wanting to fix the existing code, then the
perceived problem is not a problem.

What an absurd claim.
-
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]>
  • 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: "Peter Dolding" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH 2/2] Char: tty, add tty_schedule_wakeup
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/6] sched: make sched_slice() group scheduling savvy
• 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]