On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 09:04:22PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > 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? As LSM is only officially in 2.5, for 2.4 you can do whatever you want :) I'm guessing that by the time 2.6 comes out SELinux will have converted to using the new interfaces, whatever they are. > I'm quite happy to make up my own stuff for Debian/unstable if there's no > better options... Sounds fine with me, use the syscall if you like, but don't expect it to ever be in the main kernel tree. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ 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 - 19:41:34 PST