--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > > There are other points in this thread that might or might not warrant > making LSM modular again, but even though it might sound harsh breaking > external modules and thereby making people aware that their code should > get into the kernel is IMHO a positive point.
Those proposing LSM modules over the past couple years have been treated most harshly. I have personally taken the least flak of anyone on my proposal, and at that there have been times where I felt like pulling out the #5 clue stick and taking a few swings. It's no wonder that people are afraid to suggest a module. I didn't do it until I had combed through the archives and prepared answers for the most common attacks. I hope that Smack moving forward will defuse some of the bad vibes that have clouded the LSM for so long. I don't blame anyone who kept their module to themself given the hostility which even successful products have encountered. And don't give me the old "LKML is a tough crowd" feldercarb. Security modules have been much worse. Innovation, even in security, is a good thing and treating people harshly, even "for their own good", is an impediment to innovation. Casey Schaufler [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
