* frm jmjonesat_private "11/07/2001 06:46:32 PM -0500" | sed '1,$s/^/* /' * * On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Chris Wright 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? *> *> 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 *> * * This is good evidence that decisions are made prior to discussion on this * list. * * Actually, I don't need this export, so I'm not going to pursue it. I * actually am thinking "if we block off this, we are blocking off prior * solutions, because that is an anti-LSM solution." * * Is there ANY reason to remove this export, other than it forces LSM * modules? Yes, its untidy and pollutes namespaces. I say get rid of it. * J. Melvin Jones richard. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Offer Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI "Specialization is for insects" ___________________________________________On sabatical Nov 8 -> Nov 30 _______________________________________________ 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 - 15:59:15 PST