"Despite my heart-felt feelings that we should support different people in trying out different things, one of the issues is also that I'm obviously not myself a security person. I can 'decree' all I want, but in the end, I really want the people *involved* to merge security stuff," Linus Torvalds explained during the ongoing discussions surrounding the Linux Security Modules code. He added, "there's the 'core LSM hooks' on one side, but there's also the 'what modules make any sense at all to merge?' on the other, and I really don't have the expertise to make any sensible judgments except for the pure 'process' judgment that we should not hardcode things to just one module!" Linus pointed out that Chris Wright is currently listed as the only LSM maintainer, but hopefully others would step up to help:
"Quite frankly, I do not want to take it over. I really really really hope that people that are interested in security can work this thing out, and my only requirement is that it doesn't end up being any kind of force-feeding of opinions and ideas, since clearly there is tons of room for disagreement in the area.."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>
Subject: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
Date: Oct 24, 7:42 pm 2007
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> What I'm giving you is "Linus has decreed there can be LSMs other than
> SELinux."
>
> Getting LSMs included should no longer be harder than for other
> parts of the kernel.
Well, despite my heart-felt feelings that we should support different
people in trying out different things, one of the issues is also that I'm
obviously not myself a security person. I can "decree" all I want, but in
the end, I really want the people *involved* to merge security stuff.
Right now Chris Wrigt is the documented maintainer for LSM, and quite
frankly, I do not want to take it over. I really really really hope that
people that are interested in security can work this thing out, and my
only requirement is that it doesn't end up being any kind of force-feeding
of opinions and ideas, since clearly there is tons of room for
disagreement in the area..
Do other people want to stand up and be "LSM maintainers" in the sense
that they also end up being informed members who can also stand up for new
modules and help merge them, rather than just push the existing one(s)?
Chris? Casey? Crispin?
[ Ie there's the "core LSM hooks" on one side, but there's also the "what
modules make any sense at all to merge?" on the other, and I really
don't have the expertise to make any sensible judgements except for the
pure "process" judgement that we should not hardcode things to just one
module! ]
Linus
-
