On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:26:09PM -0800, Crispin Cowan wrote: > My understanding is that the current implementation of the syscall is > dead. Exactly. > 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. Who is "we"? And why would it matter if the number suck around? What's wrong with using a new one if it's found to be really needed in the future? 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 - 19:45:22 PST