Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Mar 2009 23:45:49 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [TOMOYO #15 0/8] TOMOYO Linux |
| |
Hi!
> > Yes. maybe ioctl() is worse, but I don't think c-like language parser > > in kernel is acceptable. > > for just clarification to me. > > IIUC, many developers said UNNECESSARY parser is BAD (yes, I also think so), > but nobody said any parser is bad. > > Therefore, I think point is that the patch have enough reasonable reason or not. > and, I thought "pavel, good job. you're right" at you oppositing time because > tomoyo did't explain any reason at that time. > > However, they changed. the patch description of the "[TOMOYO #15 3/8] Common functions for TOMOYO Linux." > explain the reason. > for me, I feel it's reasonable reason. then I didn't oppose current tomoyo posting. > > So, I don't understand which you oppose > (1) ANY parser is bad. > (2) current description still don't explain enough reason. > > May I ask you?
I'm not sure if I've seen all the TOMOYO patches... But from what I've seen of TOMOYO design, putting the parser into kernel was "just because"; it did not have any good reason. I hate to say that, but AppArmor was better designed there. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |