* Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote: > > 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? most drivers don't have a full include tree in their subdir. of course, many don't even have their own subdir but share a subdir. i like being able to keep the module code separated from the core kernel, but i'm not sure what the preferred method is. keith, what do you recommend? thanks, -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 Jan 02 2002 - 13:19:36 PST