Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:41:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:39:55 -0400 Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.100]:42464 "EHLO sentry.gw.tislabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:39:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:44:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen Smalley X-X-Sender: To: Russell Coker cc: , Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security In-Reply-To: <200210181830.28354.russell@coker.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1136 Lines: 29 On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Russell Coker wrote: > The only code that we really want to see in the mainline kernel is the hooks > for permission checks. Personally I would not mind if no security module > ever gets included in Linus' source tree. I'd disagree. I would like to see selinux included in the mainstream kernel someday, but I know that selinux needs quite a bit of work (Christoph says "rewrite") to make it acceptable. It also doesn't make much sense to submit selinux until after the remainder of LSM has been submitted for possible merging and after some level of pruning and refinement of LSM has occurred. I would also expect other security modules, e.g. DTE, to be submitted by their authors eventually. If there aren't any in-tree users of LSM, then there is little motivation for the kernel developers to retain LSM. -- Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs ssmalley@nai.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/