Re: [PATCH] Exporting capability code/name pairs

[James Morris]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, KaiGai Kohei wrote:

> > Another issue is that securityfs depends on CONFIG_SECURITY, which might be
> > undesirable, given that capabilities are a standard feature.
> 
> We can implement this feature on another pseudo filesystems.
> Do you think what filesystem is the best candidate?
> I prefer procfs or sysfs instead.

Sysfs makes more sense, as this information is system-wide and does not 
relate to specific processes.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/