Pete Zaitcev wrote: >I used to be super irritated by separate lists. Now I'm a member >of linux-usb-devel, uml-devel, sparclinux, and god knows what else. >Yes, they are unavoidable. Still, it is important to keep linux-kernel >at least somewhat informed. IMHO. > LKML was kept at least somewhat informed, IMHO: * LSM announced April 11, 2001 * Should there be separate lists for module development? o Probably * Discussion of the "DAC-out" design option appears in LKML July 12, 2001 * LSM entangled in discussion of whether binary-only modules should be permitted, September 24, 2001 * Syscall 223 provisionally reserved for LSM * LSM mentioned as related to extended attributes project * Does LSM conflict with accessfs? January 16, 2002 o No, it does not * LSM in Guillaume's big list of 2.5 stuff, January 23, 2002 * LSM in Marc-Christian Petersen's forked kernel, May 21, 2002 * LSM interfacing to extended attributes, June 28, 2002 * First LSM patch into Linus' tree, July 16, 2002 o There are lots of these subsequently, so I won't cite them all * Racing with module load/unload affects LSM too, September 12, 2002 * HCH takes issue with LSM, September 26, 2002 * LSM hook style changes from low-cost hooks to no-cost configurable hooks, October 16, 2002 * LSM and GPL requirement for modules, October 17, 2002 * Remove the LSM sys_security call, October 17, 2002 * LSM changed so that module does not have to provision every hook by providing a default action, December 1, 2002 * The start of this flame-war, February 5, 2002 Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. Chief Scientist, WireX http://wirex.com/~crispin/ Recruiting for Linux kernel and glibc developers: http://immunix.org/jobs.html