On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:29:29 BST, dawat_private (David Wagner) said: > But, in the meantime, I plead: don't mandate it on the rest of us > module-writers. Remember that the general kernel patches are intended Nope, I wasn't mandating.. > In other words, research on a new, secure interface appears to be outside > the scope of this mailing list, under my interpretation of its charter. Agreed. I have to admit *NOT* knowing how to make one right now... ;) > Providing suggestions of security_ops hooks that would be required to > support such an interface, on the other hand, appears to be directly in > line with the goals of the list, if I can presume to try to guess what > the list owners would say. That's the point that I'm at. Are there any hooks not already in our list, which are arguably/demonstrabily required to implement it? In other words: "We don't know how to do it this instant, but we *can* show that we need a hook at XYZ to do ABC, for it to work". /Valdis _______________________________________________ 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 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:22:50 PDT