On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Greg KH wrote:
> Yes, it's a big switch, but what do you propose otherwise? SELinux
> would need a _lot_ of different security calls, which would be fine, but
... or somebody willing to <gasp> try and come up with decent API.
Had you reviewed their extra syscalls, BTW? Do it - and remove
sharp objects before that...
> we don't want to force every security module to try to go through the
> process of getting their own syscalls.
... or, heaven forbid, actually designing interfaces instead of putting
together piles of kludges. Can't have it...
> And other subsystems in the kernel do the same thing with their syscall,
> like networking, so there is a past history of this usage.
Overloadable by arbitrary protocol family driver? Where?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:00:36 EST