On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 09:22:30AM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 07:23:11PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> > There are two conflicting schools of thought on this issue:
> >
> > * conditional compilation is bad: hard to maintain, etc. So just
> > use straight hooks, and make them as efficient as possible.
> > * you can't please everyone, so make LSM config'able.
>
> I think what the "no conditional compilation" is a prohibition against
> is actually #ifdefs in the .c files. If our security.h header file has
> two different definitions for the hooks, along these lines:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_LSM_SCAFFOLD
> #define foo_hook(x,y,z) _foo_hook((x),(y),(z))
> #else
> #define foo_hook(x,y,z) do { } while(0)
> #endif
>
> I'm sure gregkh will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is
> that ifdefs for the config options is fine in headers, but is verboten
> in kernel code. (An excellent example is spinlocks: under SMP, they are
> spinlocks. Under UP, they are nothing.)
Seth is correct. Please see Documentation/SubmittingPatches for more
info on this.
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
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 08 2001 - 09:31:34 PDT