Re: Notes from the Real World

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Tue May 01 2001 - 16:13:15 PDT

  • Next message: Greg KH: "Re: Notes from the Real World"

    On Tue, 1 May 2001, Greg KH wrote:
    > On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 06:34:17PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote:
    > > True, but running documentation tandem to development has the following
    > > advantages:
    > Your comments imply that the documentation be done by the coders
    > themselves in order to get the benefits during implementation.
    I strongly disagree.  My comments suggest that the coders actually,
    occasionally, READ the documentation, being self-aware enough to realize
    there are other minds at work.
    > I propose simply using the current kernel-doc system, in documenting the
    > security.h file.  Works well, exports to a zillion different formats,
    > and can be kept up to date with the code very easily (it is in the
    > code.)  I'd gladly take a patch that does this right now.
    Works well for coders, not software designers.  In many shops (my own 
    included) the coders are writing to SPEC... the SPEC being human language.
    The translation from code to human to code often results in new and better
    > I think that a small effort of implementing this now, is better than
    > having people spend separate efforts of keeping the documentation (which
    > lives outside of the source tree) up to date with the source.  Unless
    > you enjoy doing these kinds of things :)
    I do not intend to imply THIS information is not necessary.  It is.  But 
    I think an outside evaluation of this project in HUMAN-READABLE terms may 
    help develop a more "rounded" implementation.  I intend to undertake it,
    and don't see it as wasted time, unless you and yours' will ignore the 
    Are you afraid of critical review?
    If so, it is MY belief you will build a "beast with 5 backs" to address
    the needs only of the existant security projects, not something generally 
    Additionally, I do understand that Greg KH and many others don't need this 
    sort of information.  I also know that there will be other security
    modules written in the future.   I would like to investigate the
    possibility of writing one myself, actually.  A document that provides the
    "rosetta stone" to people "just below the level of kernel hacker" may be
    helpful in deciding to use this interface, rather than abandoning it for 
    a more "kernel hack" approach.
    After all, isn't the POINT of a loadable module interface to move stuff
    OUTSIDE the kernel in a coherent way?
    If I (and others) can write a document that helps make this interface more
    understandable... why do you object?
    > Good luck,
    > greg k-h
    With All Due Respect,
    J. Melvin Jones
    ||  J. MELVIN JONES            jmjonesat_private 
    ||  Microcomputer Systems Consultant  
    ||  Software Developer
    ||  Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration
    ||  Network and Systems Administration
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 01 2001 - 16:16:11 PDT