On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 04:33:47PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > > 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. I haven't seen any point so far that shows a legitimate need. Everything I've seen talks about stacking modules. Hence the current version in the tree. But have I missed anything? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ 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 - 13:41:20 PDT