Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions

• Next message: Douglas Gilbert: "Re: [RFC] remove IDESCSI_SG_TRANSFORM (compile fix)"
• Previous message: sbthomas@calpoly.edu: "Pair programming and the linux kernel"
• In reply to: Greg KH: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions"
• Next in thread: Olaf Dietsche: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Greg KH wrote:

> Anyway, there's no way to resolve both this percieved problem, and the
> "smaller and easier" patch that I proposed, right? Unless we want to
> export all dummy operation functions for all modules to use? I could do
> that, but it's pretty messy...

Yeah, very. I guess a security module could check the kernel version and
print a warning to the effect "this module has not been verified with this
kernel version" either at compile or runtime, if needed.

- James

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@intercode.com.au>
-
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/

• Next message: Douglas Gilbert: "Re: [RFC] remove IDESCSI_SG_TRANSFORM (compile fix)"
• Previous message: sbthomas@calpoly.edu: "Pair programming and the linux kernel"
• In reply to: Greg KH: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions"
• Next in thread: Olaf Dietsche: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:16 EST