Re: Proposed documentation patch to security.h

Previous message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Proposed documentation patch to security.h"
In reply to: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Proposed documentation patch to security.h"
Next in thread: David Wagner: "Re: Proposed documentation patch to security.h"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

chrisat_private

* Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > I don't like the locking information, as it too will quickly go out of
> > date.  I'd rather just refer people to the kernel locking document that
> > someone at IBM is keeping, which details the placement of all kernel
> > locks.
> >
> > Module developers are going to have to be very aware of this, as the
> > locks have a tendency to disappear over time :)
> >
> > What do other people think?
> 
> Well, it is important for security module writer's to know about locks
> that are held across hook calls.  So at the very least, let's ensure that
> this is mentioned in the lsm.tmpl document, possibly as part of Emily's
> proposed security module writer guidelines.

no doubt, knowing aobut locks is important.  this sounds like the best place
for it.

-chris

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