On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Chris Wright wrote: > This seems more than reasonable, but I believe we should consider > collapsing capable() hooks into existing LSM hooks rather than the other > way around. How's that sound? As long as we limit the scope of such collapsing to simple capable() checks, and don't start trying to collapse complex access checks with embedded capable() checks within them into the LSM hooks... -- Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs ssmalleyat_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 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 05:47:16 PDT