Re: [PATCH] no longer export capability_ops and nproc_ops

Previous message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: [PATCH] no longer export capability_ops and nproc_ops"
In reply to: jmjonesat_private: "Re: [PATCH] no longer export capability_ops and nproc_ops"
Next in thread: jmjonesat_private: "Re: [PATCH] no longer export capability_ops and nproc_ops"
Next in thread: Seth Arnold: "Re: [PATCH] no longer export capability_ops and nproc_ops"
Reply: jmjonesat_private: "Re: [PATCH] no longer export capability_ops and nproc_ops"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

chrisat_private

* jmjonesat_private (jmjonesat_private) wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Chris Wright wrote:
> 
> > it forces you to stack properly.  the export is leftover from before we
> > handled any stacking, so it's legacy cruft.
> > 
> > -chris
> > 
> 
> Forgive my ignorance: is "properly" within LSM context or based on the
> kernel if LSM is not included?  Might not LSM-prior solutions rely on this
> export?

properly meaning using the current stacking interface (mod_[un]reg_security).
and yes some solutions may be using the older way.  that's _exactly_ why
i'm asking.  consider yourself forewarned that it will go away ;-)

-chris

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