Hi! > > Especially as our merge requirements for security/ are a lot lower than > > for the rest of the kernel given that James is very afraid of getting > > whacked by Linux for not mering things. > > I think historically you'll see that I'm not afraid of getting whacked by > Linus. > > A procedure for merging security features has been adopted by consensus, > based on suggestions from Arjan, with the aim of preventing the literally > endless arguments which arise from security feature discussions. It's > sometimes referred to as the Arjan protocol, essentially: > > If the feature correctly implements a well-defined security goal, meets > user needs without incurring unreasonable overheads, passes technical > review, and is supported by competent developers, then it is likely to > be merged. > > If you disagree with a specific feature, you need to step up while it's > being reviewed and make a case against it according to the above > criteria. Well, I'm arguing that the criteria are wrong. Duplicated crap is creeping in (TOMOYO vs. AppArmor), and strange stuff that has no legitimate use is in (IMA -- what is it good for? locking machines down, iPhone style). > If you disagree with the protocol, then you need to come up with a better > one, and probably implement it yourself, to the satisfaction of all > parties. I do disagree, and I do not think 'satistfaction of all parties' is reasonable goal. Rest of kernel has different rules, and IMO they are better. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
