From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261647AbVGDMLj (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 08:11:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261627AbVGDMKZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 08:10:25 -0400 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:14723 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261648AbVGDMIL (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 08:08:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 14:08:09 +0200 From: Kurt Garloff To: serge@hallyn.com Cc: Tony Jones , Linux kernel list , Chris Wright , Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Steve Beattie , Linux LSM list Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use conditional Message-ID: <20050704120809.GR11137@tpkurt.garloff.de> Mail-Followup-To: Kurt Garloff , serge@hallyn.com, Tony Jones , Linux kernel list , Chris Wright , Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Steve Beattie , Linux LSM list References: <20050703154405.GE11093@tpkurt.garloff.de> <20050703190007.GA30292@immunix.com> <20050704065902.GO11093@tpkurt.garloff.de> <20050704074449.GA12963@immunix.com> <20050704120105.GB27617@vino.hallyn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Hnpg0BSo5EvPlUVi" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050704120105.GB27617@vino.hallyn.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.11.4-21.7-default i686 X-PGP-Info: on http://www.garloff.de/kurt/mykeys.pgp X-PGP-Key: 1024D/1C98774E Organization: SUSE/Novell User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Hnpg0BSo5EvPlUVi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Serge, On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:01:05AM -0500, serge@hallyn.com wrote: > Quoting Tony Jones (tonyj@suse.de): > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:59:02AM +0200, Kurt Garloff wrote: > >=20 > > > > The topic of replacing dummy (with capability) was discussed there > > > > last week, in the context of stacker, but a common solution for both > > > > cases would be needed. > > >=20 > > > Both cases? > >=20 > > CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKER and !CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKER ;-) > >=20 > > http://mail.wirex.com/pipermail/linux-security-module/2005-June/6200.ht= ml > >=20 > > I was assuming (bad of me I know) that Serge's patch would nail both ca= ses > > with one stone. >=20 > Yes, sorry, I never got around to the replace-dummy-with-capability > patch. There wasn't a single cry when Chris asked for anyone who'd > care about dummy being removed, so I do plan on switching that. I was a bit careful: My patch did switch the default, but LSMs that don't fill in all security_ops would still fall back to dummy, just to make sure there is no possibly unintended change in behaviour. Getting rid of dummy entirely would be better, I agree, but someone needs to review that this won't break anything. So how should we proceed? You want to do the dummy removal first, then have stacker merged and then what remains of my patches? Or should I start ... ? Regards, --=20 Kurt Garloff, Director SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. --Hnpg0BSo5EvPlUVi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCySapxmLh6hyYd04RAgpyAJ9DdbsugAo+vMPQ1FXkXBw0W/OBvACdEErn KNjs6L8Ow2a5Q2354fmVVIE= =lOrs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Hnpg0BSo5EvPlUVi--