On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:17, Keith Owens wrote: > At 10:15 13-6-2002 +0200, Russell Coker wrote: > >I wanted to build a system running the XFS file system and Linux Security > >Modules (LSM), so I had a look at hacking the patch files to make them > > work. > > > >I found one issue where the patches severely conflict, system call 1217 on > >IA64 is sys_setxattr for XFS and is sys_security for LSM! > > The *attr syscall numbers are official, in both Linus and Marcelo > kernels. LSM is picking an arbitrary syscall number for testing so > they will have to find another number - and change user space to match. OK. Shouldn't be a big issue. > Pity Linus did not take my patch that reserves a range of syscall > numbers for testing and provides a clean interface for determining > which number to use. Linus does not consider this to be a problem. Yes, reserving a separate range for testing would be good, especially if you can make it work so that patches don't conflict... BTW XFS also changes the quota system in a serious way which breaks SE Linux (not LSM). -- I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software. If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the From field. _______________________________________________ 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 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 03:48:32 PDT