From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764962AbXJXRLX (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:11:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758122AbXJXRLA (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:11:00 -0400 Received: from sinclair.provo.novell.com ([137.65.248.137]:5638 "EHLO sinclair.provo.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756617AbXJXRK7 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:10:59 -0400 Message-Id: <471C8572.3C0A.0073.0@novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0.2 HP Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:10:50 -0600 From: "Adam Jerome" To: Subject: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 6:55 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:50:29PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote: >> I currently have an LSM that only handles permissions for socket_bind >> and socket_listen, I load it and then "capability" as secondary on >> boot - but now I can't because the LSM framework is now just the LS >> framework. >> >> Why can't this "static LSM" change be a Kconfig option? >> (I don't want to have to maintain my own reverted copy of security/, >> or compile this into the kernel because then I can't ever modify and >> reload it without rebooting.) > > Let's start with the more important questions: > > Did you submit your LSM for inclusion into the kernel? > > If yes, why wasn't it accepted? > If no, why not? Those are important questions, no doubt. However, that does not address Simon's question. Especially in light of Linus' statement: "I'm also perfectly willing to unapply it if there actually are valid out-of-tree users that people push for not merging." It seems that, whether submitted (and or accepted) into the kernel or not, Simon has the obligation to respond to Linus' challenge. -adam