Re: Proposed documentation patch to security.h

From: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private
Date: Fri Nov 02 2001 - 05:30:02 PST

  • Next message: David Wagner: "Re: Proposed documentation patch to security.h"

    On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:20:30 GMT, dawat_private (David Wagner)  said:
    > In other words, I would argue that prescriptive conditions are useful
    > to have commented, but the descriptive observations can be left to IBM.
    > (I speculate that few -- if any -- hooks have prescriptive preconditions.)
    
    IBM has long been reknowned for documenting and commenting things in
    excruciating detail.  It may sometimes be hard to find stuff, or understand
    what they meant, but lack of detail is rarely a problem there.
    
    It would probably be a *very* good idea if somebody went back through
    afterwards, and see if what IBM's crew documented as the actual calling
    conditions matches what we thought it should be.  If we thought there was
    a "must have lock L to call this" requirement, and IBM says "can be called
    with or without L", we have a problem. ;)
    
    (To the IBM crew:  Yes, we *DO* appreciate the usually thankless job ;)
    
    /Valdis
    
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 : Fri Nov 02 2001 - 05:31:27 PST