[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201705302329.IEB05735.FLJOFHSQVtOOFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 23:29:10 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: jmorris@...ei.org
Cc: keescook@...omium.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
casey@...aufler-ca.com, hch@...radead.org, igor.stoppa@...wei.com,
james.l.morris@...cle.com, paul@...l-moore.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head
James Morris wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> > can afford enabling". And we know that we cannot merge all security modules
> > into mainline. Thus, allowing LKM-based LSM modules is inevitable.
>
> Nope, it's not inevitable. The LSM API only caters to in-tree users.
>
> I'm not sure why you persist against this.
Then, we are willing to accept LSM modules with users less than 10, aren't we?
Forcing users to patch and recompile is as heartless as forcing CONFIG_MODULES=n.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
