From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756871AbZB0B2H (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:28:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753370AbZB0B1y (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:27:54 -0500 Received: from fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.37]:45914 "EHLO fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753166AbZB0B1x (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:27:53 -0500 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #15 0/8] TOMOYO Linux Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Toshiharu Harada , Tetsuo Handa , jmorris@namei.org, takedakn@nttdata.co.jp, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <20090225194615.GE2645@elf.ucw.cz> References: <49A2521E.5030805@nttdata.co.jp> <20090225194615.GE2645@elf.ucw.cz> Message-Id: <20090227100350.1515.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50 [ja] Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:27:47 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Pavel, > >>>>>> TOMOYO Linux is a name-based MAC extension (LSM module) for the Linux kernel. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Applied to > >>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/security-testing-2.6#next > >>>>> > >>>> Does that mean tomoyo is scheduled for 2.6.30? > >>>> > >>> TOMOYO is already in linux-next tree and ready to go into 2.6.30 . > >> > >> Last time I looked it included script parser and some > >> interpretter... Was that solved? > > > > > Are you talking about the interface between > > userland and kernel regarding string data? > > 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?