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: Chris Wright: "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"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

jmjonesat_private

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Chris Wright wrote:

> * jmjonesat_private (jmjonesat_private) wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Chris Wright wrote:

> 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
> 

Okay, would it be fair to say:

IFF (if and only if) LSM is accepted, there is substantial, definitive
risk related to exporting these symbols.  Otherwise, there may be some
value to this export.

?

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