Re: LSM conversion to static interface

Adrian Bunk
2007-10-23T16:05:00Z

On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:47:36PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:24:42PM -0700, Thomas Fricaccia wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I think Crispin has succinctly summed it up: irrevocably closing
>>> the LSM prevents commercial customers from using security modules other
>>> than that provided by their Linux distributor.
>>>
>>
>> Any "customer" using a security model other than provided by their Linux
>> distributor instantly voided all support from that distro by doing that.
>>
>> So, since the support is gone, they can easily build their own kernels,
>> with their own LSM interfaces, and get the exact same lack of support :)
>
> Running a vendor kernel has the advantage of reusing all the QA work that
> has gone into that kernel. It is very different from running 2.6.24-rc1
> (or 2.6.22.x). Hence projects like centos: you don't get any support, but
> the likelihood of actually requiring support is lower than running some
> random kernel.

You can also get the QA work by building your own kernel from vendor
kernel sources.

E.g. the Debian distribution ships a package linux-source-2.6.18 that
contains a linux-source-2.6.18.tar.bz2 with the patched 2.6.18 kernel
sources Debian uses for building its kernels.

> [but I agree that someone who has somehow determined that they need a
> specific LSM will probably have determined that they need vendor support as
> well]

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