Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757924AbXJXXol (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:44:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754917AbXJXXob (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:44:31 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:38141 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753662AbXJXXoa (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:44:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:42:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Adrian Bunk cc: Casey Schaufler , Simon Arlott , Chris Wright , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Jan Engelhardt , Andreas Gruenbacher , Thomas Fricaccia , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , James Morris , Crispin Cowan , Giacomo Catenazzi , Alan Cox Subject: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface) In-Reply-To: <20071024233200.GJ30533@stusta.de> Message-ID: References: <20071024223124.GI30533@stusta.de> <446110.89443.qm@web36608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20071024233200.GJ30533@stusta.de> 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: 1708 Lines: 39 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > What I'm giving you is "Linus has decreed there can be LSMs other than > SELinux." > > Getting LSMs included should no longer be harder than for other > parts of the kernel. Well, despite my heart-felt feelings that we should support different people in trying out different things, one of the issues is also that I'm obviously not myself a security person. I can "decree" all I want, but in the end, I really want the people *involved* to merge security stuff. Right now Chris Wrigt is the documented maintainer for LSM, and quite frankly, I do not want to take it over. I really really really hope that people that are interested in security can work this thing out, and my only requirement is that it doesn't end up being any kind of force-feeding of opinions and ideas, since clearly there is tons of room for disagreement in the area.. Do other people want to stand up and be "LSM maintainers" in the sense that they also end up being informed members who can also stand up for new modules and help merge them, rather than just push the existing one(s)? Chris? Casey? Crispin? [ Ie there's the "core LSM hooks" on one side, but there's also the "what modules make any sense at all to merge?" on the other, and I really don't have the expertise to make any sensible judgements except for the pure "process" judgement that we should not hardcode things to just one module! ] Linus - 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/