[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 11:44:17 +0200
From: José Bollo <jobol@...adev.net>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: jmorris@...ei.org, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
hch@...radead.org, igor.stoppa@...wei.com, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
paul@...l-moore.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of
struct list_head
On Tue, 30 May 2017 23:29:10 +0900
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
> James Morris wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 May 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >
> > > can afford enabling". And we know that we cannot merge all
> > > security modules into mainline. Thus, allowing LKM-based LSM
> > > modules is inevitable.
> >
> > Nope, it's not inevitable. The LSM API only caters to in-tree
> > users.
> >
> > I'm not sure why you persist against this.
>
> Then, we are willing to accept LSM modules with users less than 10,
> aren't we? Forcing users to patch and recompile is as heartless as
> forcing CONFIG_MODULES=n.
These are good reasons. I'm in favor of Tetsuo.
Regards
José
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
