On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:02:53PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > >On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 01:32:44PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote: > > > > > >>I propose that lsm.immunix.org start maintaining a registry of known > >>module IDs. > >> > >> > > > >Bleah, I don't like this. Like Richard said, if you want to worry about > >collisions, try part of the MD5. > > > >LANNA should be used if you want to track numbers, but since the LSM > >patch isn't in the kernel, it would be pointless to ask them. > > > What is "LANNA"? Obvious google queries take me to Linux sites in Thailand. Sorry, forgot an extra A in the name: http://www.lanana.org/ > >And it would be pointless to set up a web interface, if we aren't even > >sure the number will survive in the "final" lsm version. > > > ... and I agree with all of that, too. There are forces that could > cause the numbers to change between now and the "final" LSM in the linux > kernel. This argues for the "do it later" approach. No, I don't mean the numbers will change, I mean the syscall interface itself could change, causing the number to be dropped. > Caveat: "do it later" will abruptly turn into "do it now"as soon as > someone ships a widely distributed user-level application that depends > on an LSM module number. Ah, if only a security module / userland program ever becomes "widely distributed". One can only dream... :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 19 2002 - 14:11:21 PDT