On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, richard offer wrote: > 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. My misunderstanding. unsigned long long *module_id or some common type defined in security.h makes sense. > > * > * 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. deleting those from my lottery picks. :) Um, and none of those numbers being representable in 64-bits, I'm convinced (^_^). This would seem to argue for the value of a central registry, although that sure does seem like a whole mess of red tape... > > richard. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Offer Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI > "Specialization is for insects" > _______________________________________________________________________ > Sorry, just glitched on the thought of a pointer to an unspecified structure. 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 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 10:45:37 PDT