From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262113AbULQSse (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:48:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261873AbULQSsH (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:48:07 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:11483 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262117AbULQSn6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:43:58 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:43:55 -0800 From: Chris Wright To: James Morris Cc: Guillaume Thouvenin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC] fork historic module Message-ID: <20041217104355.A469@build.pdx.osdl.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jmorris@redhat.com on Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 11:40:18AM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * James Morris (jmorris@redhat.com) wrote: > > > Any comments and suggestions are welcome. > > I don't see why you are using LSM for this. > > It's not an access control system, only uses one LSM hook (I gather > becuase it happens to be in the right place), and furthermore, uses a hook > intended for LSM resource management. We went through this before. I recommended against using it, and suggested using proper framework, such as PAGG or CKRM. However, Guillaume preferred to use something that was in the kernel instead of relying on another external patch. I don't have a problem with that, but it's not mergeable. Ideally efforts would be made to consolidate to common resource management needs, and elsa could be part of this effort. So Guillame, feel free to use the LSM hook, but just know it's not a mergeable work. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net