Re: OLS Bof info

From: Chris Wright (chrisat_private)
Date: Tue Jul 02 2002 - 12:43:55 PDT

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "Re: OLS Bof info"

    * jmjonesat_private (jmjonesat_private) wrote:
    > On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Chris Wright wrote:
    > > 
    > > the main thing i want to avoid is fooling the module into thinking it
    > > has filled in all callbacks when defaults are automagically used.
    > > 
    > 
    > ASSUMPTION: the interface still allows ONE registration of the LSM
    > structure, and all subsequent MUST be subordinately registered by the
    > primary module. (I've been working off-the-tree for some time.)
    
    This is a valid assumption.
    
    > If the module isn't filling in the pointer when it registers the
    > structure, and module-families MUST be interoperable, how can the module
    > be fooled?
    
    I'm talking about auto-filling the registered ops.  Something like an
    INIT_SECURITY macro that prepopulates the static, module local security
    ops with the defaults (before it is ever registered) allowing the module
    writer to simply overwrite the callbacks they care about.  This _hides_
    the interface from its users and makes it unclear when the interface
    has changed.
    
    We chose not to version the interface because the versioning turns out
    not to really help.
    
    thanks,
    -chris
    -- 
    Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 12:45:39 PDT