On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:16:53 -0700 Crispin Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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? > I think it's entirely reasonable that if it turns out that the code can't do a certain aspect of the envisioned security (eg not just a code bug but a design level issue), the answer is to adjust the vision... -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org - 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/
