Re: LSM conversion to static interface

2007-10-22 Thread Thomas Fricaccia
Some well-respected contributors have taken exception my amplification of Crispin Cowan's point about the patch that closes LSM. Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * It prevents enterprise users, and in fact anyone who isn't > comfortable compiling their own kernel, from ever try

Re: LSM conversion to static interface

2007-10-21 Thread Thomas Fricaccia
Yes, I think Crispin has succinctly summed it up: irrevocably closing the LSM prevents commercial customers from using security modules other than that provided by their Linux distributor. As Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulatory laws require these customers to use "standard kernels", the result is

LSM conversion to static interface

2007-10-17 Thread Thomas Fricaccia
Like many of us who earn a good living with Linux (for over a decade now) and follow the kernel developer discussions with waxing and waning interest depending on topic, I noticed James Morris' proposal to eliminate the LSM in favor of ordaining SELinux as THE security framework forever and amen