From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758324AbZCAWn3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:43:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755341AbZCAWnU (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:43:20 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:55155 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755255AbZCAWnT (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:43:19 -0500 Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 23:45:49 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Toshiharu Harada , Tetsuo Handa , jmorris@namei.org, takedakn@nttdata.co.jp, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #15 0/8] TOMOYO Linux Message-ID: <20090301224549.GC1961@elf.ucw.cz> References: <49A2521E.5030805@nttdata.co.jp> <20090225194615.GE2645@elf.ucw.cz> <20090227100350.1515.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090227100350.1515.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > Yes. maybe ioctl() is worse, but I don't think c-like language parser > > in kernel is acceptable. > > for just clarification to me. > > IIUC, many developers said UNNECESSARY parser is BAD (yes, I also think so), > but nobody said any parser is bad. > > Therefore, I think point is that the patch have enough reasonable reason or not. > and, I thought "pavel, good job. you're right" at you oppositing time because > tomoyo did't explain any reason at that time. > > However, they changed. the patch description of the "[TOMOYO #15 3/8] Common functions for TOMOYO Linux." > explain the reason. > for me, I feel it's reasonable reason. then I didn't oppose current tomoyo posting. > > So, I don't understand which you oppose > (1) ANY parser is bad. > (2) current description still don't explain enough reason. > > May I ask you? I'm not sure if I've seen all the TOMOYO patches... But from what I've seen of TOMOYO design, putting the parser into kernel was "just because"; it did not have any good reason. I hate to say that, but AppArmor was better designed there. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html