> > I see that James responded on LSPP yesterday with same basic > > requirements that I'm trying to allude to here so I'll just > wrap this > > up.. > > A natural result when people (sadly a couple or so) refuse to > objectively > assess a design based on what it can accomplish. I have the > satisfaction of > knowing though that I gave it my best shot.
Also, in case people haven't noticed the patch is still undergoing refinements (such as restricting getpeercon to return a true peer, potentially looking into ways to avoid the loss of granularity on the outbound checks, etc.) so it's still very much a work in progress (regardless of upstreamability at this point) because, Josh and I slowly seem to be getting on the same page. -- redhat-lspp mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-lspp
