On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 02:54:33PM +0100, Mike Wray wrote: > I'm not sure the case for removal has been made. Some potential problems > with the LSM security syscall have been pointed out. Isn't it better to > consider > fixes instead of ditching the syscall? The conceptual wrong design was pointed out, yes. It's not fixable without rplacing it with a proper design of the security module entry points. > Won't the absence of the syscall just result > in even worse code being used? Presumably SELinux will have to implement > the syscall functionality some other way. Unlike this hook there is a chance we can review their new creations when they ask for inclusion. _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 21 2002 - 11:33:23 PDT