On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 6:55 AM, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
