Re: [PATCH 2/6] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

Quoting david safford (safford@watson.ibm.com):
> On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 12:42 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, david safford wrote:
> >
> > > These hooks were for alternate integrity modules, and since
> > > no one else has defended them, we have to agree that they
> > > should be replaced with direct calls.
> >
> > If you know of other modules which are planned to be ported to this
> > framework, merged upstream and supported, then this would be similar to
> > the situation when LSM was initially developed.
> >
> > You've previously mentioned some active projects here:
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/17/362
> >
> > Are there any definite commitments to push these upstream when the
> > integrity framework is merged?
> 
> All of the projects listed in that posting were ones depending on
> IMA, with no requirements for alternate modules. I do hope that there
> will be other integrity modules in addition to the TPM oriented IMA, 
> and I do know of several research projects in this space, but I don't 
> know if/when any of these are planning on submission. If others are 
> submitted, it would certainly be simple to add the hooks back in.

Too bad the main trusted knoppix site appears to be dead.  Was it
actually making use of the templating api?

-serge