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