Re: [RFC 0/3] Safe, dynamically (un)loadable LSMs

[James Morris]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, Sargun Dhillon wrote:

> Should I respin this patch sans module unloading? Still a set of dynamic 
> hooks that are independent to allow for sealable memory support.

Yes, please.

> I'm also wondering what people think of the fs change? I don't think 
> that it makes a lot of sense just having one giant list. I was thinking 
> it might make more sense using the module_name instead.

I don't know how useful this will be in practice.  Who/what will be 
looking at these entries and why?


-- 
James Morris
<james.l.morris@xxxxxxxxxx>