* richard offer (offerat_private) wrote: > > I agree that we're talking cross purposes, being a pesimistic planner I > believe the APIs will diverge fairly quickly to account for features in 2.5 > that aren't in 2.4 (VFS ?) They are already different. This is the point I am trying to make. * richard offer (offerat_private) wrote: > > * crispinat_private at '7/2/02 1:58 PM -0700' > * > * * with the "manual fill" method, Richard's module won't > * compile/load, so he'll notice > * * with the auto method, Richard may well "port" is module to the new > * interface and not notice the new critical issue :) > > In the scenario you set, its clear that #1 would be a better solution from > a module developer POV. However that increases the cost of module > development by forcing a developer to write all the hooks everytime and to > maintain all those hooks even if they are not important for the policy. So > we're back to the issue of who do we make it easy for the developer... Manual fill is where we are now. I posted (some time ago) an extension to manual fill that allows the developer to manually fill with dummy stubs for things (s)he doesn't care about. This is the type of compromise I am willing to make. 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 - 16:20:23 PDT