RE: [RFC v4 0/2] WhiteEgret LSM module

2018-11-19 Thread shinya1.takumi
We appreciate your comments. We refine source code according to your comments. >> This is an interesting idea, and an evolution since the initial >> approach which was submitted based upon xattr attributes. I still >> find the idea of using attributes simpler to manage though, since >> they're ea

RE: [RFC v4 0/2] WhiteEgret LSM module

2018-11-04 Thread shinya1.takumi
Steve Kemp wrote: > This is an interesting idea, and an evolution since the initial > approach which was submitted based upon xattr attributes. I still > find the idea of using attributes simpler to manage though, since > they're easy to add, and audit for. > > I suspect the biggest objection

Re: [RFC v4 0/2] WhiteEgret LSM module

2018-10-22 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Steve Kemp wrote: > This is an interesting idea, and an evolution since the initial > approach which was submitted based upon xattr attributes. I still > find the idea of using attributes simpler to manage though, since > they're easy to add, and audit for. > > I suspect the biggest objection to

Re: [RFC v4 0/2] WhiteEgret LSM module

2018-10-21 Thread Steve Kemp
This is an interesting idea, and an evolution since the initial approach which was submitted based upon xattr attributes. I still find the idea of using attributes simpler to manage though, since they're easy to add, and audit for. I suspect the biggest objection to this module is that maintainin