Re: lsm naming dilemma. Re: [RFC v3 07/22] landlock: Handle file comparisons

2016-09-20 Thread Mickaël Salaün
On 20/09/2016 03:10, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > I'm fine giving up the Checmate name. Landlock seems easy enough to > Google. I haven't gotten a chance to look through the entire patchset > yet, but it does seem like they are somewhat similar. Excellent! I'm looking forward for your review. > > O

Re: lsm naming dilemma. Re: [RFC v3 07/22] landlock: Handle file comparisons

2016-09-19 Thread Sargun Dhillon
I'm fine giving up the Checmate name. Landlock seems easy enough to Google. I haven't gotten a chance to look through the entire patchset yet, but it does seem like they are somewhat similar. On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:25:10PM +0200, Mi

lsm naming dilemma. Re: [RFC v3 07/22] landlock: Handle file comparisons

2016-09-19 Thread Alexei Starovoitov
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:25:10PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > >> Agreed. With this RFC, the Checmate features (i.e. network helpers) > >> should be able to sit on top of Landlock. > > > > I think neither of them should be called fancy names for no technical > > reason. > > We will have only o