Re: Maintaining LSM modules

From: Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private)
Date: Mon Apr 15 2002 - 11:32:11 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Maintaining LSM modules"

    On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > Chris has talked about exporting all of the dummy_* functions, but this
    > still requires some work by the security module developer as new
    > functions are added.  I would accept this solution, but what does
    > everyone else think?
    
    I instinctively find this solution ugly. On the other hand, it might
    provide the simplest way for module developers to declare they don't
    care so much about an operation -- and, allow all the modules to get
    seamless upgrades when any of those dummy functions may be fixed in the
    event of errors in their functions.
    
    (One problem I've seen is source-sharing where a bug fix is checked into
    one version of shared source, but the fix isn't propogated to the other
    modules with similar code. At least the exported symbols 'solution'
    would provide those module authors a modicum of help in bugfixes for
    code that isn't inherently theirs but is still used.)
    
    Yeah; I like the shopping idea. :)
    
    -- 
    UniNet InfoSec Conference   April 15-19   http://infosec.uninet.edu 
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 11:33:44 PDT