* Wayne Salamon (wsalamonat_private) wrote: > 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. Great. > 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. Ah, I looked primarily at the 2.4 patch; thanks for illuminating the distinction. Really, the 2.5 case is the one we care about most. 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 : Thu Jul 11 2002 - 10:33:32 PDT