On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:

quoted text
>> If that is the only way to implement AA on top of SELinux - and so far,
>> noone has made a better suggestion - I'm convinced that AA has technical
>> merit: it does something the on-disk label based approach cannot handle,
>> and for which there is demand.
>
> What demand? SELinux is superior to AA, and there was very little
> demand for AA. Compare demand for reiser4 or suspend2 with demand for
> AA.

well, if you _really_ want people who are interested in this to do weekly 
"why isn't it merged yet you $%#$%# developers" threads that can be 
arranged.

the people who want this have been trying to be patient and let the system 
work. if it takes people being pests to get something implemented it can 
be done, but I don't think other people on the list will appriciate this.

quoted text
>> The code has improved, and continues to improve, to meet all the coding
>> style feedback except the bits which are essential to AA's function
>
> Which are exactly the bits Christoph Hellwig and Al Viro
> vetoed. http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.1/2587.html
> . I believe it takes more than "2 users want it" to overcome veto of
> VFS maintainer.

so you are saying that _any_ pathname based solution is not acceptable to 
the kernel, no matter what?

David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html