On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, richard offer wrote: > In particular, I'm not adding any security specifics to the patch. LSM is > it. Which is why we still want FD's :-) I still want userspace specified filenames, which I have "silenced" about entirely on the assurance that 2.5 will change this. FD's are useful to me, in that regard, but, since they're indexes that don't have "heft", I'd rather see the userspace-specified filename be passed to the module, somehow (perhaps with PID and FD data, simultaneously, or even INODE indexed, which interleaves into the current paradigm for control.) Exception: FD == 0, 1, 2 . :) > > > * Crispin > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 Sep 04 2001 - 13:16:28 PDT