On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Seth Arnold wrote: > I *think* we have reached the consensus on the file descriptor issue > that though many of us don't see the inherent value, it doesn't cost too > much more to pass it along as information where it is available. (Though > the NOFD_AVAILABLE #define doesn't seem real friendly to me...) If I am > wrong, and this issue is unresolved in someone's mind, I trust the list > will know in short order. Proposed: passing fd's should be supported wherever possible in the interface and will not constitute the sole reason for a rejection of a patch. Seconded? > > For the MAC/DAC issue, I think we are still in the discussion stage; at > least, I haven't seen a real convincing argument for the movement, and > I'm sure the proponents of the change would say about the same for my > arguments of putting DAC first. I have no opinion here, but I think it's boiled down to "why?" DAC first seems useful to some, MAC first seems more fitting with a semi-standard. Requesting proposal on way or another for 1 business day review. > > And, for putting the error code into the post hooks, I don't think there > has been any discussion yet. I would like to know if there is any > performance penalty paid (or saved!) by including the error code in the > post hooks, though I think in the end it will all about even out. (I > wonder about performance changes because the calls were moved to > unconditional versus conditional calls. I could see how performance > could go either way with these changes.) Perhaps other people have other > concerns? Sheesh, I have a sort of a life! :) No Opinion. But let's move on it if somebody has a strong pro or con opinion. We can discuss ourselves blue in the face, but a technique for ending the discussion with a decision is valuable. > > By breaking the pieces into three patches, each issue can be debated > individually and possibly accepted individually. By taking all three as > a whole, all three need to have a consensus of some sort before the > omnibus patch would be added to the current tree. I agree. I just want to see the consensus DEFINED and added to policy. To date, it's been discussed, but every reader of this list COULD have a different idea what the consensus is/was. > > Cheers! :) > Salut! 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 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 17:20:51 PDT