On Wed, 23 May 2001 sarnoldat_private wrote: > jmjones was not suggesting that the virgin kernel (is "core kernel" > better?) Depends on what you think about virgins and cores :) ... oy, I'm not going there. > should be charged with marshalling the chaining. Instead, by > providing some simple hooks, it is hoped to provide a more standard > method of handling module multiplexing for those modules that wish to > work with other modules. The first loaded module would be in charge of > handling any chaining, or other aggregation techniques. Not the virgin > kernel. > Well said. I have to admit I didn't start exactly there, but was nudged into the right place pretty quickly (just a sort of a mind-flip and I was into the time-slip...) Was kinda lucky I was "off" by a very small amount and others were a few steps ahead of me. > I hope I got jmjones's position correct; I trust he will correct me > where I am wrong. :) Uh oh. I'm getting a reputation. Will try only to turn into the "Correctional Hulk" to battle the forces of evil, and remain "mild mannered David Banner" for most of the future. 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 : Wed May 23 2001 - 12:33:42 PDT