On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Casey Schaufler <ca...@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > On 10/16/2013 1:47 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> Kees Cook wrote: >>> Any update on this? It'd be nice to have it in linux-next. >> What was the conclusion at LSS about multiple concurrent LSM support? >> If we agreed to merge multiple concurrent LSM support, there will be nothing >> to >> prevent this module from merging. >> > Yeah.
The discussion at LSS basically centered around the catch-22 of not being able to stack, and not having anything to stack (since Yama got an hard-coded exception). So I sent this LSM as one I'd been waiting for stacking on. Essentially, I'm breaking the catch-22 by sending this. I'd like it to get into the tree so we don't have a catch-22 about stacking any more. :) > The conclusion was that it needs to be staged because it's > too much to swallow all at once. I can see that. It's going > to be a lot of work to rearrange and rebase. That's a chunk > of time I don't expect to have for a while. It looks good > to happen, but don't hold supper for me. Do you want me to take a stab at it? It sounds like it was desirable to cut the current series into two halves? The core changes first, and the userspace interface changes next? -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
