Greg KH wrote: >Not hard, consider the following code: > lock_kernel(); > security_ops = &dummy_security_ops; > unlock_kernel(); That looks great as an *implementation*, but let me suggest that this code be hidden behind a register_hook() / unregister_hook() interface. In particular, I think it would be a good idea to ensure that policy modules don't go modify the security_ops structure theirselves, but go through some API -- this way the implementation of what's behind the API can change to accomodate, e.g., locking or loading multiple poilcy modules. What do you think? Do you agree? _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 20 2001 - 18:40:50 PDT