On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:59, Valdis.Kletnieksat_private wrote: > > pseudo-fs, what do other people think? Is a /pseudo-fs/pid/filename > > layout better, or just needless added complexity? > > /pseudo/pid/filename - you then DO have to implement proper permission > checking, but authorized tools can then use it to look at other processes. > There's already an expectation that things Should Work This Way (see > /proc). Why not just add these things to /proc? As we have to do permission checking for /proc anyway it makes sense to me to have it all in the one place. Does Linus object to adding new things to /proc/pid directories? -- 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 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 03:11:47 PST