login
Header Space

 
 

Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...>, <casey@...>
Cc: <crispin@...>, <simon@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-security-module@...>, <cliffe@...>, <oiaohm@...>
Date: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 - 12:34 am

--- Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:

http://svn.sourceforge.jp/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/trunk/2.1.x/tomoyo-lsm/patches/tomoyo-ca...

That is a matter of taste. 


I personally believe that a finer granularity than about 20
is too fine. I understand that this is a minority opinion.


Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Tue Nov 6, 11:35 pm)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Wed Nov 7, 12:34 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Tue Oct 30, 11:01 am)
speck-geostationary