[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 09:04:02PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

Ok, I think it's time for someone who actually cares about the security
syscall to step up here to try to defend the existing interface. I'm
pretty sure Ericsson, HP, SELinux, and WireX all use this, so they need
to be the ones defending it.

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

Hm, in looking at the SELinux documentation, here's a list of the
syscalls they need:

That's a lot of syscalls :)


greg k-h
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:0.123 / U:3.852 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site