Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:00:31 +1100 (AEDT) | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 0/3] Safe, dynamically (un)loadable LSMs |
| |
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@oracle.com>
| |