From: Kentaro Takeda Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #6 retry 02/21] Add struct vfsmount to struct task_struct. Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:22:13 +0900 Message-ID: <478D4E35.8000208@nttdata.co.jp> References: <20080109005320.323184643@nttdata.co.jp> <20080109005418.469053691@nttdata.co.jp> <20080115211656.GA10644@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Tetsuo Handa , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080115211656.GA10644@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hello. Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > I must say I personally prefer the apparmor approach. No problem. > But I'd recommend > you get together and get this piece pushed on its own, whichever version > you can agree on. TOMOYO can use AppArmor's patch. > Yes it needs a user, but at this point I would think > both tomoyo and apparmor have had enough visibility that everyone knows > the intended users. Not only AppArmor and TOMOYO but also SELinux want to use "vfsmount". (http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=120005904211942&w=2) > It seems to me you're both being held up by this piece, and getting > another full posting of either tomoyo or apparmor isn't going to help, > so hopefully you can combine your efforts to get this solved. We welcome AppArmor's vfsmount patches, but I wonder why AppArmor's vfsmount patches are not merged yet. What prevents AppArmor's vfsmount patches from merging into -mm tree? Regards. Kentaro Takeda