Hello.

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
quoted text
> I must say I personally prefer the apparmor approach.
No problem.

quoted text
> But I'd recommend
> you get together and get this piece pushed on its own, whichever version
> you can agree on.
TOMOYO can use AppArmor's patch.

quoted text
> Yes it needs a user, but at this point I would think
> both tomoyo and apparmor have had enough visibility that everyone knows
> the intended users.
Not only AppArmor and TOMOYO but also SELinux want to use "vfsmount".
(http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=120005904211942&w=2)

quoted text
> It seems to me you're both being held up by this piece, and getting
> another full posting of either tomoyo or apparmor isn't going to help,
> so hopefully you can combine your efforts to get this solved.
We welcome AppArmor's vfsmount patches, but I wonder why AppArmor's
vfsmount patches are not merged yet.

What prevents AppArmor's vfsmount patches from merging into -mm tree?

Regards.
Kentaro Takeda

-
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