From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Paris Subject: Re: fanotify as syscalls Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:51:37 -0400 Message-ID: <1253721097.2890.3.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> References: <20090912094110.GB24709@ioremap.net> <200909221731.34717.agruen@suse.de> <200909230939.34003.tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com> <20090923133232.5577688d@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin , Davide Libenzi , Andreas Gruenbacher , Jamie Lokier , Linus Torvalds , Evgeniy Polyakov , David Miller , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" , "alan@linux.intel.com" , "hch@infradead.org" To: Arjan van de Ven Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090923133232.5577688d@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 13:32 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:39:33 +0100 > Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > Lived with it because there was no other option. We used LSM while it > > was available for modules but then it was taken away. > > ... at which point you could have submitted your LSM module for > inclusion... you'd be the first (and only?) Anti Virus vendor that > would be in the mainline kernel.. speaking of competitive advantage, > coming out of the box in all distributions. And users would be left in a situation between choosing an LSM which actually does in provable ways increase security and using an AV scanner. Until magic solves the LSM stacking problem (it's been tried, no magic) I don't think any distro wants AV vendors as LSMs. -Eric