On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Greg KH wrote: > "Keys"??? Ouch, local word versus common usage. Any logical or physical device that gets you past a security or safety check is a "key" (keycode, magic number, whatever) Not meant to jump to: Encryption key, public/private or otherwise, Any small island chain, especially off the coast of Florida, or The posterior part of anybody's anatomy (colloquial rock-n-roll usage). Simply meant "check number / (magic number)". > > I agree there's a need for the application to verify the module is correct > > and then fail gracefully... this goes all the way back to our discussions > > months ago about providing userspace with information about the module's > > abilities (in the coarsest possible way), but I don't see how it HAS to be > > in the syscall argument list... > > It shouldn't. That isn't the job of the syscall interface. Style/philosophy issue, although you can likely defend it successfully in Linux as being "the way of things." Consistancy in the absence of contrary need is a good philosophy. > > > P.S. -- Yes, yes, I find myself agreeing with Greg. Who'd ever have thunk > > it? > > Wow! I'm shocked! :) Don't be. It's the common case. I just take longer than most to get there. > > greg k-h > Glacially Your's, 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 - 16:52:55 PDT