On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected, and had > >examples of their real-world use to step forward and explain their use, > >and that I explicitly mentioned that this is something we can easily > >re-visit. > > > > I do have a pseudo LSM called "multiadm" at > http://freshmeat.net/p/multiadm/ , quoting: >
Based on Linus' criteria, this appears to be a case for reverting the static LSM patch. Jan, I remember you posting this last year and IIRC, there were really only coding style issues to be addressed. There were some review queries and suggestions (e.g. decomposing CAP_SYS_ADMIN), but no deal-breakers -- certainly not now that security architecture and security model objections are out of bounds. So, I would suggest reposting the code for upstream inclusion, which would be better at least in terms of upstream maintenance, as your code will be visible in the tree. - James -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
