Re: LSM conversion to static interface

Adrian Bunk
2007-10-21T22:59:25Z

On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 08:57:06AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> > >I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected, and had
> > >examples of their real-world use to step forward and explain their use,
> > >and that I explicitly mentioned that this is something we can easily
> > >re-visit.
> >
> > I do have a pseudo LSM called "multiadm" at
> > http://freshmeat.net/p/multiadm/ , quoting:
>
> Based on Linus' criteria, this appears to be a case for reverting the
> static LSM patch.
>...

If you take it that strictly, the in-kernel root_plug LSM could have
been considered enough reason for reverting...

The interesting question is IMHO still:

Were Greg and Jan the only people to write such LSMs, or how many
non-abusive users that make sense as modules do really exist after
5 years?

Either you can count such real-world users with your fingers or there's
a reason why these modules didn't get included.

IOW:
Either the API has proven to not attract enough modular users or we are
having a to-be-fixed problem with getting the LSMs submitted and
included.

> - James

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