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. > My understanding is that the current implementation of the syscall is dead. We hope to do some work to come up with a syscal implementation that is more acceptable to the kernel community. We don't have anything yet, and we won't bother proposing until and unless we come up with something that will pass muster with Miller's issues, but it would really nice if the syscall number stuck around. Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. Chief Scientist, WireX http://wirex.com/~crispin/ Security Hardened Linux Distribution: http://immunix.org Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html Just say ".Nyet"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 19:27:27 PST