[ I bounced it to the list after I accidentally replied only to the sender ] On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Seth Arnold wrote: > a race condition. Oh! Um, I readily admit that I'm "weak" on race conditions. I also expect that LSM be race-resistant. I withdraw my question on this inclusion on the basis that it DOES seem to address a small set of race conditions. The cost is, imho, minimal. I hope the answer, though, helps others like me. J. Melvin Jones I also am very concerned that LSM hasn't given REAL attention to race conditions. While I know of mechanisms to moderate this problem, and have no doubt my knowledge is severely limitted, I would suggest that "SMP/Race tolerant" or better would be a GREAT arguing factor *FOR* LSM. I believe the lack of a mechanism to track access through the kernel may be an oversite. |>------------------------------------------------------ || 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 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 18:50:03 PDT