On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:15:33PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > > I agree, but I think we should discuss "standard" levels of indirection. > Build the basic structure in such a way that we could provide other > interfaces that would impose greater overhead to support modules that are > at a "higher (different?)" level of abstraction. > > Build a "low-level" interface that imposes minimal overhead, then stack > a few "higher level" standard functions on top of that. A loadable > security module SHOULD be as easy to implement as we can manage (er, you > can manage) to be as generally useful as possible. Hm, that sounds nice and vague. I too believe in Mom and apple pie :) To get specific, do you see any problems in the currently proposed code that I posted with the interface? I do, but I've already pointed out that the second pointer dereference will be going away for the final implementation due to the speed issues. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ 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 : Sun Apr 22 2001 - 13:54:43 PDT