On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Chris Wright wrote: > > Yeah, I understand the need, it's just awkward. It would be nice to find > a way that's cleaner. > We're working on it, with some suggestions from James. > > Sorry, mostly a coding style comment. But also noting this is already > checked for, and given the sensitivity of this path it would be nice to > minimize branching. > Understood. In the 2.5 case, we don't have this second check on sk because the code was restructured. In the 2.4 case, though, I wanted to keep the LSM additions contained, without restructuring the existing code. Thanks, -- Wayne Salamon wsalamonat_private _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 11 2002 - 04:39:59 PDT