Tvrtko A. Ursulin wrote: > During one recent LKML discussion > (http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119267398722085&w=2) about > LSM going > static you called for LSM users to speak up. Great big clue: If "LSM" is in the subject line, then cc: the LSM list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For LSM readers seeing this for the first time, the thread starts here and goes for a while http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/28/106 I'm sympathetic to the desire to be able to provide a 3rd party LSM that end users can install on their systems. That is why I advocated for keeping the dynamic LSM interface. Getting the dynamic interface restored faces a lot of challenges, but I hope that some kind of solution can be found, because the alternative is to effectively force vendors like Sophos to do it the "dirty" way by fishing in memory for the syscall table. I would much rather that Linux offers you a way to do what you need to do than force you to do nasty things. Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://crispincowan.com/~crispin CEO, Mercenary Linux http://mercenarylinux.com/ Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work - 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/
