Quoting Kentaro Takeda (takedakn@nttdata.co.jp):
quoted text
> Hello.
> 
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > I must say I personally prefer the apparmor approach.
> No problem.
> 
> > 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.

Right, but one will be preferred by the community - and while I have my
own preference, I wouldn't put too much faith on that, rather talk with
the apparmor folks, look over the lkml logs for previous submissions,
and then decide.

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)
> 
> > 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?

I don't recall what objections remained at the last posting.  Far as I
know there may have simply been no responses due to patch fatigue.  (it
happens)

-serge
-
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