From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jobol@nonadev.net (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6k=?= Bollo) Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 11:44:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head In-Reply-To: <201705302329.IEB05735.FLJOFHSQVtOOFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> References: <1495883858-3336-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201705281026.EHD04622.HJFOLQFMSOtFOV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201705302329.IEB05735.FLJOFHSQVtOOFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Message-ID: <20170531114417.5a7d8bcb@d-jobol.iot.bzh> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 30 May 2017 23:29:10 +0900 Tetsuo Handa 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 Jos? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html