Re: [PATCH v12 0/9] LSM: Multiple concurrent LSMs
From: Casey Schaufler
Date: Mon Jan 07 2013 - 23:11:13 EST
On 1/7/2013 7:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Casey,
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:01:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Let me ask Andrew's question: Why do you want to do this (what is the
>> use case)? What does this gain us?
>> Also, you should use unique subjects for each of the patches in the
> You probably also want to think a bit harder about the order of the
> patches - you should introduce new APIs before you use them and remove
> calls to functions before you remove the functions.
The unfortunate reality is that I couldn't find a good way to stage the
changes. It's a wonking big set of infrastructure change. I could introduce
the security blob abstraction separately but that is a fraction of the
change. If it would have gone through mail filters as a single patch I'd
have sent it that way.
I can spend time on patch presentation, and will if necessary. As it is,
I can start getting substantive commentary from beyond the LSM crowd, who
have already been extremely cooperative and often critical.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/