Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:58:02 -0700 (PDT) | From | Casey Schaufler <> | Subject | Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface) |
| |
--- Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> ... > > There are other points in this thread that might or might not warrant > making LSM modular again, but even though it might sound harsh breaking > external modules and thereby making people aware that their code should > get into the kernel is IMHO a positive point.
Those proposing LSM modules over the past couple years have been treated most harshly. I have personally taken the least flak of anyone on my proposal, and at that there have been times where I felt like pulling out the #5 clue stick and taking a few swings. It's no wonder that people are afraid to suggest a module. I didn't do it until I had combed through the archives and prepared answers for the most common attacks. I hope that Smack moving forward will defuse some of the bad vibes that have clouded the LSM for so long. I don't blame anyone who kept their module to themself given the hostility which even successful products have encountered.
And don't give me the old "LKML is a tough crowd" feldercarb. Security modules have been much worse. Innovation, even in security, is a good thing and treating people harshly, even "for their own good", is an impediment to innovation.
Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |