On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 11:30:42AM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > > > > The simplest solution is just to pass the ID as an argument in the hook. > > No, it's simpler to not have an id at all, and let the modules that are > stacking themselves, figure it all out on their own based on the call > argument. > > Remember stacking of arbitrary modules is bad, no biscuit. No argument that support for stacking arbitrary modules is totally out. If there really is no need for a module_id in the syscall code for needs other than stacking (and it's not NEEDED for stacking, it just complicates it), and it's not going to be implemented at all, I agree completely. It gets in the way. If it's there to address a legitimate need, I'd like to see it actually work with stacking and not encumber it, in the simplest incarnation possible. :) I can't imagine a simpler incarnation than just passing a 32-bit integer through and letting the module deal with it... no registration necessary. > > greg k-h > 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 - 13:35:06 PDT