Quoting Kentaro Takeda (takedakn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx): > 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. Right, but one will be preferred by the community - and while I have my own preference, I wouldn't put too much faith on that, rather talk with the apparmor folks, look over the lkml logs for previous submissions, and then decide. > > 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? I don't recall what objections remained at the last posting. Far as I know there may have simply been no responses due to patch fatigue. (it happens) -serge - 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
