Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:20:16 +1000 (AEST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
To: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>, Kees Cook <kees@outflux.net>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Module stacking next steps
In-Reply-To: <55419737.4000907@canonical.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.11.1504302119510.19912@namei.org>
References: <5536F260.3080201@schaufler-ca.com> <alpine.LRH.2.11.1504301138120.10370@namei.org> <55419737.4000907@canonical.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LRH 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1100
Lines: 33

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, John Johansen wrote:

> On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
> >> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
> >> procedure would you like to follow?
> > 
> > What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as 
> > useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
> > 
> > Any objections or concerns?
> > 
> No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
> this land.
> 
> I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
> explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)

Ok, Casey, please send an updated final version for everyone to check.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>

--
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/