On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:16:53 -0700
Crispin Cowan <crispin@crispincowan.com> wrote:

quoted text
> 
> > On the first part (discussion of the model) I doubt we can get
> > people to agree, that's pretty much phylosophical... on the second
> > part (how well the code/design lives up to its own goals) the
> > analysis can be objective and technical.
> >   
> I will try to do that as soon as possible. While I will strive to be
> both clear and precise, achieving both is challenging. So, if someone
> discovers a mis-match between the description and the code, would a
> patch to the description be an acceptable resolution, if it did not
> render the model silly?
> 

I think it's entirely reasonable that if it turns out that the code
can't do a certain aspect of the envisioned security (eg not just a
code bug but a design level issue), the answer is to adjust the
vision...


-- 
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
-
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/