On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 08:19:09AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Greg KH wrote: > > > In looking at the hooks that we have, that no one uses, module_* were an > > easy target. So here's a series of patches that removes them. If no > > one complains, I'll commit these to the main tree. > > > > Well, DTE did use the module_delete hook, but that's not the way to > > prevent yourself from ever being unloaded. Just do a MOD_DEC_USE_COUNT; > > in your init_module() function, and then you can't be unloaded. > > Please see my response to Christoph on this issue, copied to the list. If > the criteria is that every hook and every parameter to every hook must be > used by an existing open source security module, then a number of the > hooks and parameters need to be pruned. Yes, I think this has always been the criteria for adding hooks. And yes, in looking over the existing hooks, I think they need to be pruned, due to no one using them. > But I don't think that this is a good strategy, as it guarantees that > the LSM hooks will need to be extended very frequently as people begin > to truly take advantage of LSM. That's fine with me. The more hooks we have, the more maintenance we have to do. And the kernel community does not tolerate things being added to the kernel that are not actively being using (ghash.h being the odd exception.) 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 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 09:16:43 PDT