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]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- 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]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- 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):
 |