[gentoo-amd64] Re: Re: Re: catch 22 with realtime-lsm and commoncap (capability dependency) modules

[Duncan]

Mark Knecht posted
<5bdc1c8b0604241008y6cbdd79dkde18bd535f8b482c@××××××××××.com>, excerpted
below,  on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:08:59 -0700:

> On 4/23/06, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
>> Mark Knecht posted
>> <5bdc1c8b0604232127m36e41816hd387e5da9e620d3e@××××××××××.com>,
>> excerpted below,  on Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:27:17 -0700:
>>
>> > Just keep in mind that LSM **IS** going away. It's not an IF, it's a
>> > WHEN.
>>
>> ??  LSM -- the kernel Linux Security Module framework, or realtime-lsm
>> (as your previous post implied) specifically?
>>
>> As far as I was aware, there had been discussions of eliminating the
>> LSM plugin framework entirely, if nothing else was merged into mainline
>> that used it. [] However, I had believed the discussion had been
>> shelved, after putting people on notice that LSM /might/ be removed,
>> until some later date[.]
>
> There have been a bunch of conversations on this subject last week on
> the LKML. As best I understand them it seem that everyone is pretty much
> in agreement that it's going away completely. the same things can be
> done with PAM so they see no reason to carry it forward. I don't know if
> it's going in 2.6.17 or 2.6.18 but it sounds like it will go soon. A few
> of the audio folks smarter than seem to agree.

Something that big would have to go into (come out of) an -rc1.  They
wouldn't do it beyond that, as it's too big a change.  As I mentioned,
2.6.17-rc2 still has it, so presumably a patch removing it would be
submitted for 2.6.18-rc1.  That's assuming they don't decide a six-month
or whatever notice is warranted.  Most big removals of that nature get put
on a schedule to do some months later, the idea being that one simply
can't remove a user-space interface without at least /some/ notice.

> the issue we have here in Gentoo land is that the correct version of PAM
> is 0.80 or later and that has not been available in portage, althoough I
> see this morning a masked version of 0.99.3.0 so it looks like someone
> is starting to look after this...

Given Greg KH is a big kernel dev /and/ a Gentoo dev, I don't believe he'd
let Gentoo get /too/ out of sync in that regard. 

However, there's another reason to do the 6-month notice thing, as neither
Gentoo nor any of the other big distributions will be able to stabilize an
updated replacement PAM in the ~2 month kernel release development period.
I doubt this will be in (out of) .18, either.  .19 is more reasonable.  I
expect it will be either .19 or .20 if the decision has now been
finalized.  A stable PAM replacement should be doable by that time.

Thanks for the updated info!

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list