On Mon, October 22, 2007 18:13, Greg KH wrote: > I agree, that is why customers do not load other random security modules > in their kernel today, and why they will not do so tomorrow. So, > because of that, this whole point about compliance with regulatory law > seems kind of moot :) > > Again, LSM isn't going away at all, this is just one config option for > allowing LSM to work as a module that is changing. If a customer > demands that this feature come back, I'm sure that the big distros will > be the first to push for it. But currently, given that there are no > known external LSMs being used by customers demanding support, I don't > see what the big issue here really is.
I have an out of tree module to do per-port (tcp/udp) bind permissions, it works fine with the "capability" module as secondary and I can load or unload both of them at any time... this recent change completely breaks that. (I had to #include dummy.c though). Why should I now need to: 1. reboot every time I change the code when I could just reload modules before? 2. put it into my kernel source tree to use it? -- Simon Arlott - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
