Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security

From: Christoph Hellwig (hchat_private)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 13:04:02 PDT

  • Next message: Greg KH: "Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security"

    On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:07:23PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > But this will require every security module project to petition for a
    > syscall, which would be a pain, and is the whole point of having this
    > sys_security call.
    
    And the whole point of the reemoval is to not make adding syscalls
    easy.  Adding a syscall needs review and most often you actually want
    a saner interface.
    
    > How would they be done differently now?  Multiple different syscalls?
    
    Yes.
    
    > 
    > I do know that Dave Miller has also complained about the sys_security
    > call in the past, and the difficulties along the same lines as the
    > ioctl 32bit problem.  If we were to go to individual syscalls for every
    > security function, this would go away.
    
    Yes, doing the 32bit translation for a call where you don't actually
    know what the arguments mean is impossible.  See the 32bit ioctl
    compatiblity mess.
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 Oct 17 2002 - 13:05:27 PDT