[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] remove sys_security
    On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:31:35AM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    > That's interesting. Passing a completely opaque value (actually an
    > integer) through the system call was exactly what we designed it to do,
    > because we saw a design need for pecisely that: so that applications
    > with awareness of a specific module can talk to the module.
    > Could you elaborate on why this is a sign of trouble, design wise?

    Because we already have such a syscall (ioctl) and we see the trouble it
    causes all over the place. Design yur interfaces properly instead.

    > >If we do things such as the fs stacking or fs filter ideas,
    > >that eliminates a whole swath of the facilities the security_ops
    > >"provide". No ugly syscalls passing opaque types through the kernel
    > >to some magic module, but rather a real facility that is useful
    > >to many things other than LSM.
    > >
    > Yes, that will be wonderful. And the LSM team will be pleased to re-work
    > the desing when stackable file systems appear and we can take advantage
    > of them.

    So do it know. It's possible and it just shows you've sent the LSM crap
    without actually thinking about a better design. Come back when you
    have a proper design.

    and btw, as LSM is part of the kernel anyone can and will change it.
    Your LSM team attitude is a bit like that hated CVS mentality..
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.020 / U:7.892 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site