login
Header Space

 
 

Re: LSM conversion to static interface

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Greg KH <greg@...>
Cc: Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...>, Crispin Cowan <crispin@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, LSM ML <linux-security-module@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>
Date: Monday, October 22, 2007 - 1:47 pm

Greg KH wrote:

Running a vendor kernel has the advantage of reusing all the QA work 
that has gone into that kernel.  It is very different from running 
2.6.24-rc1 (or 2.6.22.x).  Hence projects like centos: you don't get any 
support, but the likelihood of actually requiring support is lower than 
running some random kernel.

[but I agree that someone who has somehow determined that they need a 
specific LSM will probably have determined that they need vendor support 
as well]

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

-
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, 10:24 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Alan Cox, (Mon Oct 22, 6:07 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Crispin Cowan, (Mon Oct 22, 12:10 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Alan Cox, (Mon Oct 22, 12:50 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Greg KH, (Mon Oct 22, 12:56 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Greg KH, (Sun Oct 21, 11:59 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Geert Uytterhoeven, (Tue Oct 23, 12:52 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Avi Kivity, (Mon Oct 22, 1:47 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Adrian Bunk, (Tue Oct 23, 12:05 pm)
speck-geostationary