Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security

From: Andi Kleen (akat_private)
Date: Fri Oct 18 2002 - 03:13:55 PDT

  • Next message: Russell Coker: "Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security"

    > For such ports would we need to have security system calls operating in both 
    > 64bit and 32bit versions?  For SE Linux half the programs that use the SE 
    > system calls are specific to SE Linux (loading policy, showing or toggling 
    > "enforcing mode", etc), the other half are modified versions of ls, ps, cron, 
    > login, and a few other important system programs.
    
    On most 64bit ports it is no big issue, just a nuisance. But sparc64 and 
    mips64 don't have a 64bit userland, only 32bit. For these it is a showstopper.
    
    > > Some ports even only have 32bit userland but 64bit kernel (like sparc64 or
    > > mips64)
    > 
    > So for those ports we could have a straight 32bit interface and again have no 
    > problems.
    
    So you want to maintain an own interface for sparc64? That's identical
    to an emulation layer effectively, but somewhat less maintainable.
    
    -Andi
    _______________________________________________
    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 Oct 18 2002 - 03:14:37 PDT