On 28/10/07 14:37, Stefan Richter wrote:Stacking modules makes a lot of sense, it may be tricky to order sensibly, now if you want the features of more than one LSM (including those being added to the kernel), you need to *copy* the parts you want. Since you can't use modules to load them, because that feature's been removed, you need to maintain your own kernel tree for it or submit your changes which will eventually end up with LSMs that all do the same thing... This static LSM doesn't even make sense to me - what happens if I select both SECURITY_CAPABILITIES and SECURITY_ROOTPLUG? I can't easily check because I'm using 2.6.23 - so I can still reload my module while changing it to have a better configuration interface. Kconfig doesn't look like it will prevent it. Surely the options should be a multiple choice menu? Adrian's mentioned people eager to write drivers - LSMs aren't drivers, there's really nothing to work from except "security module that does X" and for that people should develop what they want themselves. There's no reason for out of tree *GPL* drivers to not exist, is there? How much of the non-driver code that gets merged into the kernel exists first as out of tree modules, rather than direct patches to the tree itself? It was made much easier since 2.4 to compile a module out of tree using a simple Makefile. (Perhaps that should be removed too?) -- Simon Arlott -
| Greg KH | Og dreams of kernels |
| Jens Axboe | [PATCH 31/33] Fusion: sg chaining support |
| Arnd Bergmann | Re: finding your own dead "CONFIG_" variables |
| Mark Brown | [PATCH 2/2] Subject: natsemi: Allow users to disable workaround for DspCfg reset |
| Tony Breeds | [LGUEST] Look in object dir for .config |
git: | |
| Brian Downing | Re: Git in a Nutshell guide |
| John Benes | Re: master has some toys |
