On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 04:11:15PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > > On 22 May 2001, David Wagner wrote: > > > but is > > getting into this discussion now a good idea? Not again. I thought we agreed to not worry about this right now. :) > My suggestion involves only a few lines in the current > patch, and certainly could be "erased" if a better idea > comes along, but the idea of stackable modules seems > VERY core, at this point, *to me*. No it doesn't. It requires every hook to add the ability to chain modules. Let's drop this for now and then bring it up when we have a working system. > Somebody used the phrase "The Unix Way" before. The Unix > Way is to build small active components and mix and match > them to fit the specific needs of the system. If only > ONE module is possible without back end fixes from the > module... that may be good for commercial module builders > but I think it kind of "cripples" the "unix way". "The Unix Way" does not pertain to kernel modules in any sense of the phrase. Think usermode programs, not kernelspace. 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 : Tue May 22 2001 - 13:45:09 PDT