From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: Preview of changes to the Security susbystem for 2.6.36 Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:08:59 -0500 Message-ID: <20100802180859.GA29948@hallyn.com> References: <20100802063224.GR3948@outflux.net> <20100802065746.GS3948@outflux.net> <4C569BCA.3050603@ontolinux.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kees Cook , James Morris , linux-kernel , linux-security-module , linux-fsdevel To: Christian Stroetmann Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C569BCA.3050603@ontolinux.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Quoting Christian Stroetmann (stroetmann@ontolinux.com): > Aloha James, Aloha Kees; > Ont the 02.08.2010 08:57, Kees Cook wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 04:41:08PM +1000, James Morris wrote: > >>On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Kees Cook wrote: > >>>Well, at least I'll have something for my summit presentation again. > >>> > >>>On the other hand, it's rather hard for me to defend against a private NAK. > > A private NAK against a company's developer's OK > Where is the difference private and company? I thought that it > doesn't matter who and what a developer is, and where she/he comes > from. That's not what private means in this case. A private nak is one made in a private email, so that the list - and the submitter - can't see the rationale. It is problematic because it doesn't really allow the other party to address the objection. (No big deal - Christoph has since responded in public.) -serge