From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751274AbWDQW6b (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:58:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751380AbWDQW6b (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:58:31 -0400 Received: from mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.6]:8108 "EHLO mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751274AbWDQW6a (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:58:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:58:26 -0400 (EDT) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@d.namei To: Alan Cox cc: Gerrit Huizenga , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Stephen Smalley , casey@schaufler-ca.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fireflier-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks In-Reply-To: <1145314085.14793.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <1145314085.14793.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Alan Cox wrote: > > something like AppArmour provides a much simpler security model for > > If the AppArmour people care to submit their code upstream and get it > merged then that would be a reason to keep LSM, if they don't then LSM > (if they even want it..) can just become part of their patchkit instead. This is the discussion we had a year ago, and have seen nothing upstream since. I assume they do not intend to submit the code. - James -- James Morris