On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected, and had examples of their real-world use to step forward and explain their use, and that I explicitly mentioned that this is something we can easily re-visit. But I also note that you did no such thing, neither has anybody else. The fact is, security people *are* insane. You just argue all the time, instead fo doing anything productive. So please don't include me in the Cc on your insane arguments - instead do something productive and I'm interested. Ok? That was the whole point of LSM in the first place. I'm *not* interested in getting roped into your insane arguments. I'm interested in moving forward and having real examples of real use and code. Until then, this issue is closed. I thought I had made that clear already, but apparently not clear enough. So I repeat: we can undo that commit, but I will damn well not care one whit about yet another pointless security model flamewar. Linus -
| Hiten Pandya | Re: up? (emacs docbook xml ide) |
| David Newall | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| Greg KH | Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] Fixing the Kernel Janitors project |
| James Morris | Re: LSM conversion to static interface |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
