On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Seth Arnold wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 06:17:39PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > > Hrm, I'd thought that a 32-bit identifier argument was something of a > > "done deal" [...] > > Heh, and I similarly thought that leaving this entirely up to the > modules in question (as opposed to an LSM-imposed convention) was a > done deal. > I don't know if one can actually "impose" a convention. I think more in terms of code imposing things... which is right out, imho. Finding the magic number of a module family is probably not going to be terribly difficult, anyway, and a simple way to spread us all out is all that I saw suggested. *Shrug*, I'll use it... you don't have to... it seems a nice distance between richard offer's list of "numbers everybody will pick" and central registration. 's long as we don't all pick the same bit-pattern, the magic stays magic. Unconventially Good Idea, Thanks (yoink (pulls it into his idea pile.)) 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 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 15:35:48 PDT