From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763399AbXF1L3R (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:29:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758427AbXF1L3E (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:29:04 -0400 Received: from mail.phnxsoft.com ([195.227.45.4]:3099 "EHLO posthamster.phnxsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760095AbXF1L3D (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:29:03 -0400 Message-ID: <46839B10.7040005@imap.cc> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:27:12 +0200 From: Tilman Schmidt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de-AT; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070509 SeaMonkey/1.1.2 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller CC: crispin@novell.com, seanlkml@sympatico.ca, bunk@stusta.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jjohansen@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview References: <4682D13C.6060107@novell.com> <20070627172940.1cabd5c4.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <4682E8E1.6090701@novell.com> <20070627.160535.71552808.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20070627.160535.71552808.davem@davemloft.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigB2C7BDEF0EBFEF487094C410" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigB2C7BDEF0EBFEF487094C410 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David Miller schrieb: > What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that > it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't > personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping > apparmour working with upstream largely off of your back and in the > hands of the upstream community. >=20 > Neither of those are reasons why something should go into the tree. I beg to differ. b) is *the* reason cited again and again on LKML for submitting code for inclusion in the tree. Whenever anyone posts anything which is remotely related to out-of-tree code, whether it's a question on the usage of some standard in-tree function, a request for help with a coding or debugging problem, or out-of-tree repercussions of an in-tree change, he or she invariably has to put up with an answer along the lines of: "put your code into the tree and all your problems will be solved" - or its sarcastic variant: "I can't find your code anywhere in the current kernel sources". You can't have it both ways. Either you go around bashing people for maintaining their code out-of-tree or you go around bashing people for trying to get their code into the tree. --=20 Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Unge=F6ffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe R=FCckseite) --------------enigB2C7BDEF0EBFEF487094C410 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGg5sQMdB4Whm86/kRAmnIAJ477ztnC0UkGiYu3ZZjOExaK/IVkACeMZAL I39sCeBhFsSebIXPEtvqcAU= =OBvw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigB2C7BDEF0EBFEF487094C410--