Torvalds On Pluggable Security Models

eldavojohn writes "The KernelTrap highlights an interesting discussion on pluggable security models including some commentary by Linus Torvalds. While Torvalds argued against pluggable schedulers, he's all for pluggable security. Other members were voicing concerns with the pluggable nature of the Linux Security Model, but Torvalds put his foot down and said it stays. When asked why his stance was different between schedulers and security, he replied, 'Schedulers can be objectively tested. There's this thing called 'performance,' that can generally be quantified on a load basis. Yes, you can have crazy ideas in both schedulers and security. Yes, you can simplify both for a particular load. Yes, you can make mistakes in both. But the *discussion* on security seems to never get down to real numbers. So the difference between them is simple: one is hard science. The other one is people wanking around with their opinions.'"

Comments

Re:Spot on Torvalds...

[QuantumG]

That being the case, it doesn't matter which way you lean towards schedulers. The fact that you cannot quantify security is an argument for keeping it modular. Hehe, but that's the point. Don't you get it? Linus was asked to make an argument as to why he won't make the scheduler modular, and security modules were put forward as an example of why modular is good. His response? He explains why security modules are modular. No shit Mr Torvalds, now would you please answer the question?