Re: syscall convention

Previous message: Seth Arnold: "Re: syscall convention"
In reply to: Greg KH: "Re: syscall convention"
Next in thread: richard offer: "Re: syscall convention"
Next in thread: jmjonesat_private: "Re: syscall convention"
Reply: richard offer: "Re: syscall convention"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

offerat_private

* frm gregat_private "08/21/01 15:10:54 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /'
*
* On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 05:36:47PM -0400, David Wheeler wrote:
*> This approach has the following advantages:
*> * It's simple.
* 
* Great.  This is just one way to do this.  Feel free to create a stacking
* module that does something like this.
* 
* However we are not forcing anyone to support this within the current lsm
* patch.  So the current lsm syscall interface will stay the same as it
* currently is (which does allow you to do this if you so desire).

I will submit a patch that adds an extra parameter to syscall 

    sys_security(int modid, int cmd, unsigned long *args) 

for the private use of the module.

This was agreed at the BOF on the understanding that there was going to be
no central registry of modids (there was no disenting voices on that
issue). 

Using David's suggestion still works (no registry) and provides belt and
braces approach to picking random numbers. 

* 
* thanks,
* 
* greg k-h
* 

richard.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Offer                     Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI
"Specialization is for insects"
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module