* 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