Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756109AbXJBIgx (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 04:36:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752663AbXJBIgp (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 04:36:45 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:47076 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752539AbXJBIgo (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 04:36:44 -0400 X-Authenticated: #2253541 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19pBZAOQXFp2ZLw5yY4ewY3fIJhxuBXyXBvLcSzz3 W6MltRhwdwVfuj Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:36:32 +0200 From: Thomas Bleher To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , casey@schaufler-ca.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , James Morris , Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel Message-ID: <20071002083631.GA7101@thomas> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , casey@schaufler-ca.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , James Morris , Paul Moore References: <46FEEBD4.5050401@schaufler-ca.com> <20070930011618.ccb8351b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070930095310.GA18642@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070930095310.GA18642@infradead.org> X-Accept-Language: de, en X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.23-rc8-gff0ce684 x86_64 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1164 Lines: 25 * Christoph Hellwig [2007-10-02 10:14]: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 01:16:18AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > reviewed the August thread from your version 1 submission and the message I > > take away is that the code has been well-received and looks good when > > considered on its own merits, but selinux could probably be configured to > > do something sufficiently similar. > > > > I'd have trouble declaring that "but" to be a reason to not merge smack. > > I'm more thinking "let's merge it and see if people use it". > > I'm not sure this was discussed on the list, but as long as Casey doesn't > get rid of the magic symlinks (smackfs_follow_link), there's a clear NACK > from the VFS perspective. Any rationale for this NACK? Caseys patch doesn't add something crazy like "make symlinks depend on environment variables"; also, we already have something similar in-tree: /proc/self. Thomas - 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/