Re: [PATCH] Support for kbuild-2.5

Previous message: richard offer: "[PATCH] Support for kbuild-2.5"
In reply to: richard offer: "[PATCH] Support for kbuild-2.5"
Next in thread: richard offer: "Re: [PATCH] Support for kbuild-2.5"
Reply: richard offer: "Re: [PATCH] Support for kbuild-2.5"
Reply: Chris Wright: "Re: [PATCH] Support for kbuild-2.5"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

sdsat_private

On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, richard offer wrote:

> I've been working with Keith Owens to add some features to kbuild that were
> needed for SELinux, that's been done (at least it works with the patch he
> sent me this morning). In particular he added support for SELinux's own
> include/asm-$(ARCH) stuff. However the problem of arch/i386/syscalls.c
> still remained. The likelyhood of adding support for that into kbuild is
> close to zero, to work around this I've moved arch/i386/syscalls.c to
> include/asm-i386/syscalls.c

Thanks for working on this.  However, I noticed that the kbuild-2.5
ChangeLog says:
  Add KBUILD_INCLUDE_PATHS for patches that have their own separate
  include tree, including asm-$(ARCH).  selinux does this, I am not
  100% convinced that it is a sensible thing to do but I will support
  it for now.

With the original SELinux kernel patch, the new SELinux header files were
directly added into the main include tree.  When we reimplemented SELinux
as a Linux security module, it seemed like we should keep those header
files within the selinux module tree, thereby requiring our own include
tree.  Is that inconsistent with common practice for kernel modules?

--
Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
ssmalleyat_private

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