Re: syscall convention

Previous message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: syscall convention"
In reply to: Crispin Cowan: "Re: syscall convention"
Next in thread: David Wheeler: "Re: syscall convention"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

dawat_private

Crispin Cowan  wrote:
>At the DC LSM BOF, the group consensus was that there would be no IANA for
>module numbers, but we would add one additional int (or unsigned, I forget)
>argument to the LSM syscall.

And the key is that everyone who uses a module ID will make it the
*first* argument (not just any arbitrary one of the int arguments).
This is documented only by the name of the formal parameter in the
function prototype, and is not to be enforced in any way by the LSM code
(if the module wants to enforce it, that's up to the module).

Or, that was the proposal from the Usenix Security BOF, anyway.

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