linux-kernel March 2009 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > linux-kernel archives
linux-kernel: Re: [TOMOYO #15 0/8] TOMOYO Linux

Re: [TOMOYO #15 0/8] TOMOYO Linux

From: Pavel Machek <pavel_at_nospam>
Date: Sun Mar 01 2009 - 22:45:49 GMT
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>


Hi!

> > Yes. maybe ioctl() is worse, but I don't think c-like language parser
> > in kernel is acceptable.
>
> for just clarification to me.
>
> IIUC, many developers said UNNECESSARY parser is BAD (yes, I also think so),
> but nobody said any parser is bad.
>
> Therefore, I think point is that the patch have enough reasonable reason or not.
> and, I thought "pavel, good job. you're right" at you oppositing time because
> tomoyo did't explain any reason at that time.
>
> However, they changed. the patch description of the "[TOMOYO #15 3/8] Common functions for TOMOYO Linux."
> explain the reason.
> for me, I feel it's reasonable reason. then I didn't oppose current tomoyo posting.
>
> So, I don't understand which you oppose
> (1) ANY parser is bad.
> (2) current description still don't explain enough reason.
>
> May I ask you?

I'm not sure if I've seen all the TOMOYO patches... But from what I've seen of TOMOYO design, putting the parser into kernel was "just because"; it did not have any good reason. I hate to say that, but AppArmor was better designed there.

                                                                        Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html