From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Add security_socket_post_accept() and
 security_socket_post_recv_datagram().
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20090423.071055.10826015.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <200904220538.n3M5c4QI010548@www262.sakura.ne.jp>
	<20090421.225202.218457438.davem@davemloft.net>
	<200904232300.IIB39542.SHJFLOtFVQFOMO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: paul.moore@hp.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
Return-path: <linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <200904232300.IIB39542.SHJFLOtFVQFOMO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:00:09 +0900

> David Miller wrote:
>> FWIW I do not agree with TOMOYO conceptually.
> That will be my fault. I haven't explained you the background of this proposal.
> Would you please be patient and read below explanation?

Save your typing, I've read all of these descriptions, I still
do not like it.