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.