Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)

Jan Engelhardt
2006-04-19T19:22:36Z

>>
>> Well then, have a look at http://alphagate.hopto.org/multiadm/
>>
>> There is a reason to why people [read: I] do not submit out-of-tree
>> (OOT) modules; because I think chances are low that they get in. Sad
>> fact about the Linux kernel.
>
>Why do you feel this way. We document how to get patches applied very
>well (look in Documentation/SubmittingPatches and
>Documentation/HOWTO), and provide good review comments on anything
>that is posted.
>

In case of MultiAdm: It adds some more LSM hooks, some of which have
received a frown.[1] And it adds a ton of changes scattered throughout
the kernel (namely replacing capable() with capable_x()) -- I would
suppose these would be ignored to death even more than [1]. Just look
at the 2.6.15-mtadm.diff within the multiadm package.

In general: I am probably too strongly tied to my own CodingStyle to
change it for Documentation/CodingStyle. (Regarding tabs-vs-space. I'm
flexible about indent level.) After all, I have to maintain it... If
someone else makes the necessary adjustments, let it be.

>We also have a kernel-mentors mailing list that people use to vet
>their patches to get them into shape for submission.
>
>So please feel free to submit your patch, especially as without
>another LSM user in the kernel tree, the interface will probably go
>away.

[1] http://tinyurl.com/opo8h
(long url below, should the tinyurl go away someday)

Jan Engelhardt
--
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/browse_frm/thread/ef106f193befdbe5/79896dc45b0d5944?lnk=st&q=security_task_post_setgid+author%3AJan+author%3AEngelhardt&rnum=1&hl=en#79896dc45b0d5944