> > Well, now I need /proc compiled in, that's 46k. Richard, I applaud your attempts to run a machine without /proc. I have tried to do this in the past and don't recommend it to anyone. It's amazing how many different userspace applications rely on it. The embedded world can get away with it, as they control their applications much better. But what's wrong with query_module(2)? Oh yeah, your code is compiled into the kernel :) Well then, you _know_ that your kernel is modified by you, so what's the big deal? Add a sysctl entry if you really want (but again, that's an abuse of the interface and don't recommend it.) There are lots of other ways than to badger this poor little syscall into doing something it was never intended to do. > * Group: is there perhaps a cheaper way to indicate the presence of an > LSM module than a /proc entry? Or is that really the Linux Way to do > this, and we should stop with the fussing? Again, query_module(2). 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 - 19:38:29 PDT