Re: Preview of changes to the Security susbystem for 2.6.36

From: Kees Cook
Date: Mon Aug 02 2010 - 12:36:15 EST

Hi Christian,

On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:19:54PM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
> But we discussed as well that the problem of chaining of small or
> large LSMs is not an argument for the existence of the Yama LSM, and
> that the LSM architecture should be developed further so that all of
> the functionalities of other securtiy packages without an LSM can be
> integrated as a whole by a new version of the LSM system in the
> future and not by ripping them of like it was done with the Yama LSM
> [3].
> You can see these objections [3] as a second NAK, but now from a
> company's developer (I haven't said this before, because I'm not a
> hard core kernel developer).

I'm not sure I understand you, exactly. Are you saying that Yama should not
exist because it might grow into a large LSM?


Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at