[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] remove sys_security
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:07:23PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> But this will require every security module project to petition for a
> syscall, which would be a pain, and is the whole point of having this
> sys_security call.

And the whole point of the reemoval is to not make adding syscalls
easy. Adding a syscall needs review and most often you actually want
a saner interface.

> How would they be done differently now? Multiple different syscalls?


> I do know that Dave Miller has also complained about the sys_security
> call in the past, and the difficulties along the same lines as the
> ioctl 32bit problem. If we were to go to individual syscalls for every
> security function, this would go away.

Yes, doing the 32bit translation for a call where you don't actually
know what the arguments mean is impossible. See the 32bit ioctl
compatiblity mess.

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:0.132 / U:8.088 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site