On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Seth Arnold wrote: > 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. LSM is providing a new, well defined ABI. Anybody want to argue with that? I'm simply asking about backward compatability. If there are solutions out there that need that export... WHY (again *WHY*) would LSM prohibit that export if it was NOT for the purpose of excluding "other prior solutions"? I'm not vehement here, but a few words ON TOPIC wouldn't hurt. J. Melvin Jones |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 15:54:52 PST