Arjan van de Ven wrote: > My main concern for now is a description of what it tries to protect > against/in what cases you would expect to use it. THe reason for asking > this explicitly is simple: Until now the LSM discussions always ended > up in a nasty mixed up mess around disagreeing on the theoretical model > of what to protect against and the actual implementation of the threat > protection. THe only way I can think of to get out of this mess is to > have the submitter of the security model give a description of what his > protection model is (and unless it's silly, not argue about that), and > then only focus on how the code manages to achieve this model, to make > sure there's no big gaps in it, within its own goals/reference. > I really, really like this proposal. It is essentially what I have always wanted.
> On the first part (discussion of the model) I doubt we can get people > to agree, that's pretty much phylosophical... on the second part (how > well the code/design lives up to its own goals) the analysis can be > objective and technical. > I will try to do that as soon as possible. While I will strive to be both clear and precise, achieving both is challenging. So, if someone discovers a mis-match between the description and the code, would a patch to the description be an acceptable resolution, if it did not render the model silly? Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://mercenarylinux.com/ Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work - 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/
