Re: LSM conversion to static interface

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Greg KH
Date: Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 8:59 pm

On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:24:42PM -0700, Thomas Fricaccia wrote:

Any "customer" using a security model other than provided by their Linux
distributor instantly voided all support from that distro by doing that.

So, since the support is gone, they can easily build their own kernels,
with their own LSM interfaces, and get the exact same lack of support :)

And, what are these "other LSM modules" you speak of that people rely on
to run their businesses?


Wait, what?

Since when does Sarbanes-Oxley decree that a company must use a
"standard kernel"?  And just exactly what defines such "standard
kernel"?  Can you point out where in that bill it requires such a thing?

Totally confused,

greg k-h
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Thomas Fricaccia, (Sun Oct 21, 7:24 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Greg KH, (Sun Oct 21, 8:59 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Alan Cox, (Mon Oct 22, 3:07 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Crispin Cowan, (Mon Oct 22, 9:10 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Alan Cox, (Mon Oct 22, 9:50 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Greg KH, (Mon Oct 22, 9:56 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Avi Kivity, (Mon Oct 22, 10:47 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Adrian Bunk, (Tue Oct 23, 9:05 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Geert Uytterhoeven, (Tue Oct 23, 9:52 am)