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

Serge E. Hallyn
2007-07-19T13:37:39Z

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.

James, relax, I'm done arguing against your patch, I just think
end-users/customers might complain.

-serge