From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751226AbWDTSMb (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:12:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751223AbWDTSMb (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:12:31 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:7112 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751221AbWDTSMa (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:12:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:08:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Greg KH cc: Chris Wright , Stephen Smalley , Christoph Hellwig , tonyj@suse.de, James Morris , Jan Engelhardt , Andrew Morton , T?r?k Edwin , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] make security_ops EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() In-Reply-To: <20060420170153.GA3237@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <20060419181015.GC11091@kroah.com> <1145536791.16456.37.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20060420150037.GA30353@kroah.com> <1145542811.3313.94.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20060420161552.GA1990@kroah.com> <20060420162309.GA18726@infradead.org> <1145550897.3313.143.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20060420164651.GA2439@kroah.com> <1145552412.3313.150.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20060420170153.GA3237@kroah.com> 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 Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Greg KH wrote: > > Some closed source modules are taking advantage of the fact that the > security_ops variable is available to them, so they are using it to hook > into parts of the kernel that should only be available to "real" users > of the LSM interface (which is required to be under the GPL.) I'm really not going to apply this. It's insane. "security_ops" is used by _anything_ that uses the inline functions in , which suddenly means that a non-GPL module cannot use _any_ of the standard security tests. That's insane. And there's no point to this patch. The "explanation" I have seen so far is that some strange root-kit could take over the security ops. That's just crazy talk. If you're a root-kit, would you care about the copyright license? No. So this patch just makes zero sense from any standpoint. If people want to remove security_ops, that's fine (not for 2.6.17, but assuming you guys can come to some reasonable agreement, at some later date). But turning it into a GPL-only, but leaving all the infrastructure requiring it is not. Linus