![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 17:34 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 05:07:40PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote: > > Andrew, all, > > > > Is there any reason this patch could not go for a spin in a -mm tree? > > It's similar to Guillaume's fork connector patch which did appear in -mm > > at one point. It replaces the fork_advisor patch that ELSA is currently > > using, can be used by userspace CKRM code, and in general is useful for > > anything that may wish to monitor changes in all processes. > > Why can't you use a lsm module for this instead? It looks like you are > wanting to hook things in pretty much the same places we currently have > the lsm hooks at. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Guillaume apparently tried to use LSM for his fork connector and was told "this doesn't belong here": http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0502.2/1000.html This patch does not affect whether or not these operations succeed and hence is a poor match for LSM even though it hooks into the same places in the kernel. There has been some discussion on lse-tech about 'task_notifiers' that would allow multiple modules to hook into these paths without polluting the paths themselves. I modified the patch with these proposals in mind. Then, assuming such an interface developed, I could submit a small patch which would convert to using the new interface. Would you still rather see the patch as an LSM module? Thanks, -Matt Helsley < matthltc @ us.ibm.com > - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-10-26 01:11 [W:0.347 / U:0.030 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||