On Mon, October 22, 2007 18:13, Greg KH wrote:
quoted text
> I agree, that is why customers do not load other random security modules
> in their kernel today, and why they will not do so tomorrow.  So,
> because of that, this whole point about compliance with regulatory law
> seems kind of moot :)
>
> Again, LSM isn't going away at all, this is just one config option for
> allowing LSM to work as a module that is changing.  If a customer
> demands that this feature come back, I'm sure that the big distros will
> be the first to push for it.  But currently, given that there are no
> known external LSMs being used by customers demanding support, I don't
> see what the big issue here really is.

I have an out of tree module to do per-port (tcp/udp) bind permissions,
it works fine with the "capability" module as secondary and I can load
or unload both of them at any time... this recent change completely
breaks that. (I had to #include dummy.c though).

Why should I now need to:
1. reboot every time I change the code when I could just reload modules before?
2. put it into my kernel source tree to use it?

-- 
Simon Arlott
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/