From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Stroetmann <stroetmann@ontolinux.com>
Subject: Re: Preview of changes to the Security susbystem for 2.6.36
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:50:07 +0200
Message-ID: <4C57135F.4070404@ontolinux.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1007301852110.14431@tundra.namei.org> <alpine.LRH.2.00.1008021216520.31941@tundra.namei.org> <20100802063224.GR3948@outflux.net> <alpine.LRH.2.00.1008021639230.32603@tundra.namei.org> <20100802065746.GS3948@outflux.net> <4C569BCA.3050603@ontolinux.com> <20100802180859.GA29948@hallyn.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100802180859.GA29948@hallyn.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

Aloha Serge;
On the 02.08.2010 20:08, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> 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.)
>
>    

Sorry, but AFAIK the NAK by Christoph that I meant was written in a 
public e-mail with full context to the LSM mailing list some weeks ago 
around the end of June (23 June 2010?!) and I thought Kees meant this 
NAK. :D

But thanks for trying to clearify the case.

Sorry Kees, if you indeed meant with private NAK a NAK made in a private 
e-mail.

Have fun
Christian Stroetmann