* frm jmjonesat_private "08/10/01 12:36:40 -0400" | sed '1,$s/^/* /' * * On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, richard offer wrote: * *> I suggest making it a void * rather than int, to make it absolutely clear *> that this is a policy specific entity that has no relevevance to the *> kernel. * * Just one thought: my module uses a character string, yours' uses an * integer. How's a po' module to know? My module goes to scan your * application's integer... possible "kaboom"? I'm not suggesting passing a valid pointer, but it would allow for moving to 64bit values if both the application and kernel were 64bit. I should have said "unsigned long" instead of "void *" to remove the pointer issue. * * 32 bits is a lot of space; I'd think it's probably enough... It would be plenty if it was registered or if it was truely random, but people aren't random when it comes to picking numers. 1,13,17,23,42,69,105,666 would all be high on the list of hits. * but since a * pointer is very often 64bits, why don't you think a 64-bit integer would * fly? (I think I missed something there.) I meant a fixed width value that is 64bits wide, not a pointer which will vary depending on the arch. Some people hate passing 64bit values, particularly on broken archtectures. * * * Just A Thought, * J. Melvin Jones * richard. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Offer Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI "Specialization is for insects" _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 Aug 10 2001 - 09:56:46 PDT