On Tue, October 30, 2007 07:14, Cliffe wrote:Would it be possible to have Kconfig select which LSM should handle each area of security? Selecting LSM A would automatically disable LSM B and C since they both implement the same security functions, while LSM D would still be selectable since it implements something else. The default capabilities code would then turn off parts of itself that another LSM is handling. Alternatively the M in LSM can be restored and modules can be stacked. It should be possible for the primary LSM to check the security_ops of the secondary LSM(s) and complain if it considers there to be an incompatiblity. -- Simon Arlott -
| Glauber de Oliveira Costa | [PATCH 0/19] desc_struct integration |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| jmerkey | [ANNOUNCE] mdb: Merkey's Linux Kernel Debugger 2.6.27-rc4 released |
| Oliver Pinter | Re: x86: 4kstacks default |
git: | |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: VCS comparison table |
| Mark Junker | git on MacOSX and files with decomposed utf-8 file names |
| Junio C Hamano | Re: More precise tag following |
| Len Brown | fatal: unable to create '.git/index': File exists |
| Mayuresh Kathe | Re: What is our ultimate goal?? |
| Diana Eichert | Re: OpenBSD on decTOP? |
| Richard Stallman | Real men don't attack straw men |
| knitti | Re: HP Procurve or Soekris w. OpenBSD ? |
| Mark Lord | Re: 2.6.25-rc8: FTP transfer errors |
| Andi Kleen | [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro. |
| Ritesh Kumar | SO_RCVBUF doesn't change receiver advertised window |
| Evgeniy Polyakov | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
