Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 08:37:27AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org):
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > 
> > > > It's already pretty clear.
> > > 
> > > I doubt anyone not on lkml or linux-security-module has heard of this.
> > > 
> > > So we'll see.
> > > 
> > > (I was, obviously, talking about end-users)
> > 
> > If distributions are shipping binary modules and other out of tree code to 
> > their users, then they should bear responsibility for supporting and 
> > maintaining the infrastructure required for it, and not expect upstream 
> > maintainers to do it for them.
> > 
> > Additionally, if they want to expose their users to risks arising from 
> > broken and unecessary infrastructure, then they should bear the cost and 
> > responsibility of doing that and not expect others to do so as well.
> > 
> > I don't see how this is even slightly difficult to understand.
> 
> I'm not talking about distros - I don't see how this is even slightly
> difficult to understand  :)
> 
> The situation I have in mind is someone who decideds to use, say, SLIM,
> but wants to otherwise use the distro kernel.
>...

AFAIR this does anyway not work because at least the version of SLIM 
that once was in -mm required some patching of the kernel.

> -serge

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed