Greg KH wrote: >I agree about hiding the registration and unregistering behind a >function call that handles it. I did just that in the patch I posted. Great! That seems like it ought to take care of the common case, and that is indeed the case I was proposing. Sounds wonderful to me. Thanks. >As for hiding access to the security_ops structure itself? [...] Sorry, I didn't mean to argue this. Naah, I don't see any reason to prevent LSM's from touching the security_ops structure. Like you say, it's probably impossible to do anyway. I just would like to remove the temptation to do so unnecessarily. Are there any other common reasons why LSM writers might be tempted to manipulate it directly? If so, should we provide an interface for those common operations? I can't think of any others: registering and unregistering takes care of everything I can think of. _______________________________________________ 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 : Sat Apr 21 2001 - 14:41:50 PDT