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. ;) > > /Valdis > One minor problem... the hooks need to get authoritative or post-in-kernel with a passed value (along the lines of my previous suggestion) to make our module really work. Passing the in-kernel checks to the "simple assurance" module allows that module to return a refusal therefrom pre-emptively, without passing anything to the service routines for the hooks. Other problems, like copy-and-pass could be handled by this stackable module... Or were you being totally facetious? 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 - 14:56:26 PDT