Hi Christian, On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:19:54PM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote: > But we discussed as well that the problem of chaining of small or > large LSMs is not an argument for the existence of the Yama LSM, and > that the LSM architecture should be developed further so that all of > the functionalities of other securtiy packages without an LSM can be > integrated as a whole by a new version of the LSM system in the > future and not by ripping them of like it was done with the Yama LSM > [3]. > You can see these objections [3] as a second NAK, but now from a > company's developer (I haven't said this before, because I'm not a > hard core kernel developer). I'm not sure I understand you, exactly. Are you saying that Yama should not exist because it might grow into a large LSM? -Kees -- Kees Cook Ubuntu Security Team -- 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
