Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion tostatic interface

[Adam Jerome]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at  6:55 AM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:50:29PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
>> I currently have an LSM that only handles permissions for socket_bind
>> and socket_listen, I load it and then "capability" as secondary on
>> boot - but now I can't because the LSM framework is now just the LS
>> framework.
>> 
>> Why can't this "static LSM" change be a Kconfig option?
>> (I don't want to have to maintain my own reverted copy of security/,
>> or compile this into the kernel because then I can't ever modify and
>> reload it without rebooting.)
> 
> Let's start with the more important questions:
> 
> Did you submit your LSM for inclusion into the kernel?
> 
> If yes, why wasn't it accepted?
> If no, why not?

Those are important questions, no doubt.  However, that does not
address Simon's question.  Especially in light of Linus' statement:

 "I'm also perfectly willing to unapply it if there actually are
  valid out-of-tree users that people push for not merging."

It seems that, whether submitted (and or accepted) into the kernel
or not, Simon has the obligation to respond to Linus' challenge.

-adam



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/