On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 Valdis.Kletnieksat_private wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:20:28 EDT, jmjonesat_private said: > > > Dr. Wagner has alluded to this many times... a construct that forces > > modules to be more restrictive without imposing on the interface. With > > stacking, this an achievable objective. > > ooh.. a more concrete proposal than my "with appropriate programming > style".. I stand trumped. ;) Um, *LOL*, okay, you're trumped. Not REALLY, but virtually. We'll work on a module that provides this (pretty simple with the code we already have)... The issue in MY mind is not IF, but WHERE this assurance should be provided. I think it has great value; I also am doubtful if it has universal value. If a product can "prove" simple assurance if a stacked module is pre-loaded, isn't that valuable? Barring, of course, community discovery that the module provides no such thing, in which case modification of the module would move farther in that direction. > > /Valdis > 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 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 14:46:37 PDT