From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750899AbWDTNJU (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:09:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750905AbWDTNJU (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:09:20 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:6085 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750870AbWDTNJT (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:09:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:09:17 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: grundig Cc: Crispin Cowan , ak@suse.de, arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/11] security: AppArmor - Overview Message-ID: <20060420130917.GF18604@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> References: <20060419174905.29149.67649.sendpatchset@ermintrude.int.wirex.com> <20060420011037.6b2c5891.grundig@teleline.es> <200604200138.00857.ak@suse.de> <4446E4AE.1090901@novell.com> <20060420150001.25eafba0.grundig@teleline.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060420150001.25eafba0.grundig@teleline.es> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting grundig (grundig@teleline.es): > El Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:32:30 -0700, > Crispin Cowan escribi?: > > > Our controls on changing the name space have rather poor granularity at > > the moment. We hope to improve that over time, and especially if LSM > > evolves to permit it. This is ok, because as Andi pointed out, there are > > currently few applications using name spaces, so we have time to improve > > the granularity. > > Wouldn't have more sense to improve it and then submit it instead of the > contrary? At least is the rule which AFAIK is applied to every feature > going in the kernel, specially when there's an available alternative > which users can use meanwhile (see reiser4...) hah, that's funny When people do that, they are rebuked for not submitting upstream. At least this way, we can have a discussion about whether the approach makes sense at all. -serge