In our existing module, done as a kernel patch, we add a syscall which we use to control our security module. I was expecting to use the LSM syscall the same way. However, we only use the syscall for admin controls over our module - we don't have a whole collection of new syscalls like SELinux does. We're using LSM because that gets us out of patching the kernel, which is where we want to be. So if the security syscall does away we'll have to do it some other way. We'd probably use /proc. This wouldn't be a major issue for us. ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg KH To: Crispin Cowan Cc: Christoph Hellwig ; torvaldsat_private ; linux-kernelat_private ; linux-security-moduleat_private Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 8:11 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:04:00AM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote: > Why the fierce desire to remove something so cheap? Because it's so crappy :) And will not work properly on all architectures, which is one of the biggest reasons to get rid of it, IMHO. _______________________________________________ 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 - 07:02:40 PDT