On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:13:10AM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: > > the following patch (against 2.5.64) introduces kobject infrastructure > scaffolding to the LSM framework. It does nothing but allocating security root > subsystem for the LSMs, so that they are tied to one specific point in the > kobject hierarchy. They are suggested to create own subsystems under the > security subsystem, however such things are completely up to the individual > LSMs and not regulated by core in any way (it's not that I would so much like > such an approach, but I was advised so by GregKH and it makes sense in its own > way as well). Hm, I thought I advised not doing this at all :) Anyway, if we were to add this, you might want to: > + > +/* kobject stuff */ > + > +/* We define only the base subsystem here and leave everything to a LSM. It is > + * heavily recommended that the LSM should create own subsystem under this one, > + * so that it can be easily made stackable and it doesn't confuse userland by > + * exporting its stuff directly to /sys/security/. */ > +decl_subsys(security,NULL); Add a prototype of this variable to security.h so that everyone can actually see it who wants to use it. > +/** > + * security_kobj_init - initializes the security kobject subsystem > + * > + * This is called after security_scaffolding_startup as a regular initcall, > + * since we need sysfs mounted already. > + */ > +static int __init security_kobj_init (void) > +{ > + subsystem_register (&security_subsys); > + return 0; > +} > + > +subsys_initcall(security_kobj_init); Why not initialize this when the security core is initialized? Why have a new initcall? And when do you unregister this subsystem? > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_subsys); No EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() for it? :) 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 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 13:00:56 PST