Hello. Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > I must say I personally prefer the apparmor approach. No problem. > But I'd recommend > you get together and get this piece pushed on its own, whichever version > you can agree on. TOMOYO can use AppArmor's patch. > Yes it needs a user, but at this point I would think > both tomoyo and apparmor have had enough visibility that everyone knows > the intended users. Not only AppArmor and TOMOYO but also SELinux want to use "vfsmount". (http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=120005904211942&w=2) > It seems to me you're both being held up by this piece, and getting > another full posting of either tomoyo or apparmor isn't going to help, > so hopefully you can combine your efforts to get this solved. We welcome AppArmor's vfsmount patches, but I wonder why AppArmor's vfsmount patches are not merged yet. What prevents AppArmor's vfsmount patches from merging into -mm tree? Regards. Kentaro Takeda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
