Re: [PATCH] no longer export capability_ops and nproc_ops

Previous message: Chris Wright: "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"
Reply: jmjonesat_private: "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 ]

sarnoldat_private

On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 06:26:10PM -0500, jmjonesat_private wrote:
> 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?

Note that the Linux kernel in general doesn't care about ABI
compatibility for loadable kernel modules. c.f. min/max. c.f.
deactivate_page in loop.c. etc..

A work in progress, such as LSM, typically owes no backwards or forwards
compatibility to anyone, at either the source or binary level.

-- 
The Bill of Rights: 7 out of 10 rights haven't been sold yet! Contact
your congressman for details how *you* can buy one today!

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