On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdun...@infradead.org> wrote: > From: Randy Dunlap <rdun...@infradead.org> > > Fix Documentation location reference for where LSM descriptions should > be placed. > > Suggested-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdun...@infradead.org> > Cc: James Morris <jmor...@namei.org> > Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <se...@hallyn.com> > Cc: linux-security-mod...@vger.kernel.org
Thanks! Acked-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> Jon, can you take this? -Kees > --- > Documentation/security/LSM.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > --- lnx-419-rc7.orig/Documentation/security/LSM.rst > +++ lnx-419-rc7/Documentation/security/LSM.rst > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Linux Security Module Development > Based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/26/215, > a new LSM is accepted into the kernel when its intent (a description of > what it tries to protect against and in what cases one would expect to > -use it) has been appropriately documented in > ``Documentation/security/LSM.rst``. > +use it) has been appropriately documented in > ``Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/``. > This allows an LSM's code to be easily compared to its goals, and so > that end users and distros can make a more informed decision about which > LSMs suit their requirements. > > -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
