On 21 Apr 2001, David Wagner wrote: > Once again, I propose the following: If you want to build a policy > module that adds extra semantics to access(), feel free -- but I would > like to be free to build a policy module that ignores access() [or even > kills any process that uses it, if I wish]. Agreed, but it's gonna break stuff (but not irreparably), J. Melvin Jones |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 - 15:47:43 PDT