On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 20:18, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:04:15PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > > At the moment the very existance of the sys_security() call is under > > debate so there's probably no point in submitting a change upstream, but > > I think it would be good for development purposes if we had a syscall > > defined for all architectures in the LSM patch. > > There's no more debate, the syscall is dead. So what are we supposed to do until a replacement is devised? I'm quite happy to make up my own stuff for Debian/unstable if there's no better options... -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page _______________________________________________ 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 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 12:05:28 PST