Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753952AbXJYBDq (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:03:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752192AbXJYBDi (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:03:38 -0400 Received: from web36608.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.25]:34705 "HELO web36608.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751942AbXJYBDh (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:03:37 -0400 X-YMail-OSG: 6mtJxEEVM1n.noVOvxaFDXUzIVl9Hkrtgifmp_UiQRwa7i7ozuuwqio3TcwEyluINx3KYLQmQuHHsXNY1xZnaBwp2OdQYGArvWq6kRDzbcWKkdGPuUI- X-RocketYMMF: rancidfat Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:03:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Casey Schaufler Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface) To: Linus Torvalds , 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 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <64482.42947.qm@web36608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2152 Lines: 56 --- Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > 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? Count me in. > [ 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/ > > > Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.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/