From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265875AbUBQCpk (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:45:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265953AbUBQCpk (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:45:40 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:17061 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265875AbUBQCph (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:45:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:45:35 -0800 From: Chris Wright To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH} 2.6 and grsecurity Message-ID: <20040216184535.D16277@build.pdx.osdl.net> References: <200402170134.i1H1YIAW016949@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20040216181546.A22989@build.pdx.osdl.net> <200402170237.i1H2bb3r008280@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200402170237.i1H2bb3r008280@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>; from Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:37:36PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu) wrote: > OK.. I can do that easily enough - only reason I didn't was because that would > force the inclusion of ip_randomid() and the corresponding call even when the > feature wasn't selected, making it more intrusive (the 'else' clause is also the > "when not configured at all" code - moving the whole if/then/else to another > function was more intrusive, to my thinking..) could be #ifndef CONFIG_RANDID #define ip_randomid(x) (x) #else int ip_randomid(int id) { if(security_enable...) return random_one(); return id; } #endif or somesuch, you get the idea. > > > + * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this softwar > e > > > + * must display the following acknowledgement: > > > + * This product includes software developed by Niels Provos. > > > > Advertsing clause...this is not GPL compatible. > > Thanks for spotting that. It's the same way in grsecurity's patch - do they > have an issue as well? Or they OK because they're only doing a separately > distributed patch? I suspect yes, but, of course, IANAL ;-) thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net