* Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote: > > 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... Yup, I agree. -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 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 09:52:34 PDT