Re: quotactl hook

From: richard offer (offerat_private)
Date: Wed Sep 05 2001 - 17:53:00 PDT

  • Next message: Greg KH: "Re: quotactl hook"

    * frm crispinat_private "09/05/01 17:23:55 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /'
    *
    * 
    * The proposed Smalley/Lachlin/Wright patch does not provide for either.
    * It does provide an authortative-ish hook style, which can be
    * short-circuited.  Is that useful to SGI?  If so, then IMHO Chris Wright's
    * analysis suggests that it is easily cheap enough to justify.  If not,
    * then we should revert to the simpler restrictive-only hooks.
    
    The proposal known as "semi-authoritaive" hooks is useful to SGI. Its not
    perfect, but we can live with the deficienies.
    
    
    We realize that any wide-spread hook re-positioning to absolutely avoid
    all-short circuits isn't going to get accepted either by LSM or the kernel
    developers, but that's not to say there wont be minor bug-fixes that we
    will propose as and when we get hit by them. We will try to work around any
    issues we hit and only suggest a bug-fix as a last resort.
    
    
    Is that clear enough commitement to not using trying to get a foot in first
    and then forcing fully authoritative afterwards ?
    
    * 
    * 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
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Sep 05 2001 - 17:54:43 PDT