Where can I find more info on his Linux as an organisation is run/structured? As in what hand does Linus play, what are these mailing lists, how do the devs work on things and how are they approved, what role rhe TAB (and others?) plays etc.
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
83 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
10605 readers
429 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A list of Linux Security Modules is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Security_Modules
List of Linux Security Modules
snark
(I didn't read the wiki page closely. Why was the heading "Adoption" and not something more clear?)
AppArmor
Integrity Policy Enforcement (IPE)[6]
Landlock[7][8]
LoadPin[9]
SafeSetID[10]
SELinux
Smack
TOMOYO
Yama[11]
As a long time SysAdmin, but not your SysAdmin, I have used two of these. Both had terrible documentation for which many "must use" paid software vendors advise disabling the Security Module as a first step.
If random software vendors' lowest paid intern cannot figure out the settings for arbitrary Linux Security Modules, then the first line of the directions will always be to disable the security module. This leads to them not being used in many cases where the security module would be helpful.
snark
(To explain, it is only the cheapest and most inexperienced person that is typically responsible for doing things as they are not in meetings all day.)
I agree with Linus.
What exactly is a linux security module? Like what do they do?
Like when there's a security issue, it gets patched- what does a module of some kind add to that?
Search result for Linux Security Modules
Linux Security Modules (LSM) is a framework allowing the Linux kernel to support, without bias, a variety of computer security models.
ie, implement security policies other than the standard model such as mandatory access controls.
"Yes, I know that security people always think they know best, and they all disagree with each other, which is why we already have tons of security modules. Ask ten people what model is the right one, and you get fifteen different answers."
"I'm not in the least interested in becoming some kind of arbiter or voice of sanity in this."
How do you even get to a consensus model to tease these things out; when your answer is a refusal to engage with "pointless" things?
It just seems contentious to me, that anyone when considering this kind of rhetoric, would make claims in regards to the level of security that Linux (may) provide. It just feels something akin to playing in the realm of security theater.
Man, some people just love wasting others' time and then getting mad when they say no more.
Linus' apathy may keep ten different competing security ideas from each being mainlined, but it's not impossible for them to continue and prove their worth out of tree until some sort of coherent best practices are established.
Meanwhile, actual security issues will continue to be patched as needed and Linux remains the most analyzed and targeted kernel in the world.
prove their worth out of tree until some sort of coherent best practices are established
I feel like this is what the Technical Advisory Board should be replying with.