login
Header Space

 
 

Re: LSM conversion to static interface

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Greg KH <greg@...>, LSM ML <linux-security-module@...>, Crispin Cowan <crispin@...>
Date: Monday, October 22, 2007 - 1:12 pm

> The point of contention:  closing LSM significantly reduces the freedom

No it doesn't. Strange interpretations of peculiar US laws may be doing
that. Thats [with Linux community hat on] _not_our_problem_.


Send patches.


Corporations practice "liability dumping" so that would be expected. They
want to dumb liability onto their suppliers, their customers and anyone
else they can find. Its the logical commercial practice faced by any
rational body evolving in the US marketplace.

But thats still their issue, no the community's issue. 

Alan
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Thomas Fricaccia, (Mon Oct 22, 1:00 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Giacomo Catenazzi, (Tue Oct 23, 1:53 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Crispin Cowan, (Tue Oct 23, 3:12 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Greg KH, (Tue Oct 23, 11:41 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Giacomo A. Catenazzi, (Tue Oct 23, 4:17 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Greg KH, (Mon Oct 22, 1:13 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Simon Arlott, (Tue Oct 23, 7:38 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Crispin Cowan, (Tue Oct 23, 1:14 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Alan Cox, (Mon Oct 22, 1:12 pm)
speck-geostationary