On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 11:02:17AM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > >Huh? What is going to scale poorly? The current sys_security() call? > >I don't see anything in the current code tha scales badly. All I hear > >is vague statements about how some code, sometime in the future that > >impmenents a sys_security() hook, might not scale well. > > > Thus is the nature of API design: you design the interface for > anticipated future needs, not just what's on the table. "640k ought to > be enough for anybody." :) This is not the nature of Linux kernel API design, sorry. Go see the _many_ threads about things like this on lkml over the years for validation of this. > >Come on people, if there is a real problem, I'd be glad to deal with it. > >And as there is no posted code showing a problem, > > > But there IS code dealing with it: David came to the group *with code* > and pointed out that he cannot reasonably implement his Stacker function > with the API as-is. I don't count the polling response as "reasonable"; > that's a kludge to get around a limitation in the API. And I posted code that David was happy with that works with the API as-is. Where's the problem? As David is implementing a Stacker type module, he is going to have to do exactly the same thing for _all_ hooks that you seem to find so ugly. The sys_security() call is not a special case here. David just didn't realize that sys_security() needs to return -ENOSYS if that specific module does not want to handle the sys_security() call. It could be argued that the overhead for doing this kind of work for all of the hooks is far greater than any overhead for the sys_security() call, so something else needs to be changed to make it easier for modules to stack, but I'm not going to bring that up... :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ 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 : Mon Aug 26 2002 - 11:16:32 PDT