Re: State of Audit Proposal ?

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Fri Jul 20 2001 - 15:56:54 PDT

  • Next message: Seth Arnold: "Re: State of Audit Proposal ?"

    On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 03:46:38PM -0700, richard offer wrote:
    > 
    > We are really keen to get the API changed as soon as possible so that we
    > can start working on the rest of the audit code ready for phase 2. 
    > 
    > What does the rest of the list feel we need to do to have the patch
    > accepted ?
    
    Um, what about splitting the patch up into 3 pieces as I suggested, as
    it does 3 different things?
    
    And I recommend adding the fd to the functions as part of "phase 2", not
    to be added right now.
    
    We don't want _anything_ in the LSM patch that is not needed _right now_
    or odds are it will be rejected.  I will not defend a lsm patch to
    anyone that contains portions that "will be used in the future."
    
    As someone else on this list said, interfaces in Linux change, and
    that's a good thing.  When we push for audit, if it is decided to,
    _then_ we add those changes to the patch.
    
    MHO of course :)
    
    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 : Fri Jul 20 2001 - 15:57:23 PDT