On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 13:28 +0900, Kazuki Omo(Company) wrote: > Also, I still wonder who decide to put new LSM security module > to mainline. Past year, some of security module put their patch > to LSM-ML, right? > - PitBull Foundation and LX (I know PitBull have a long histry) > - AppArmor > - Digsig > - UidBind > - MultiAdmin > - SLIM > - file capabilities :-) > etc. > > Why we still don't have new LSM security module? Who makes decision?
Not me. But your list of examples is uncompelling; some of them were only announced, never submitted; some of them refused to make requested changes, some of them were critiqued as being bad ideas (and not only by selinux folks), some of them had fundamental implementation problems and were withdrawn by their authors, and some of them seem to be moving forward. Adding a new security model to the kernel shouldn't be taken lightly. It has a real impact on users and applications, and the more distinct security models you offer, the harder it becomes for users and applications to cope with all the variations, especially when there is no commonality in policies or APIs (something which SELinux tries to provide common infrastructure for, but LSM does not). The usual end result is that only the least common denominator gets used, and no real improvement is obtained. -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
