From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755851Ab1KAVhO (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2011 17:37:14 -0400 Received: from tundra.namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:57600 "EHLO tundra.namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753242Ab1KAVhM (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2011 17:37:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 08:37:11 +1100 (EST) From: James Morris To: Kees Cook cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] security: Yama LSM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1319672956-17114-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 1 Nov 2011, Kees Cook wrote: > > We probably need to flesh out criteria for inclusion in Yama and document > > it. > > What's the best way for me to help with that documentation? Perhaps post a basic document for review. It doesn't have to be a novel. One thing I'd like to see is making it clear that if a feature is nacked by a core maintainer, Yama is not a means to bypass that nack. That maintainer will need to ack it as part of Yama, too. - James -- James Morris