* jmjonesat_private (jmjonesat_private) wrote: > On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Chris Wright wrote: > > > > 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. i've made up _my_ mind. i don't think it is necessary. i want to make sure i haven't missed the obvious, and give people a heads up that a legacy cruft is going away. hence the submission to list asking people's thoughts. > Chris: why do you want to remove this export? because it serves no purpose. we have to defend every line of code in the lsm patch when we submit it for inclusion to 2.5. and i dont' think there is a justification for this export. the nproc module exports it's interface, this is surely an artifact of using the capability module as a template. so before this erroneous export proliferates i propose we remove it. -chris _______________________________________________ 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 - 16:07:23 PST