On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:50:51PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > hi folks I'd suggest CC: the lsm mailing list, they might have some comments about this. > the following patch Please don't compress patches, it's a pain to read them. > - modifies the security modules registering code to built a stack of > modules themself > - changes the internal interface of the security functions to get a > pointer to that stack > - the dummy functions always traverse through the stack > - register the dummy functions as a special security module > - drop the cap_* declaration > - drop mod_(un)reg_security > - add a name parameter to (un)register_security > > missing things > - register_security isn't called, it may decide if it allowes the other > module to be stacked together. > > advantages > - it is possible to stack modules together without special support by > the modules > - add functions which will be handled by a non standard module without > need to modify the standard one > > problems > - abi change, change of the security inline functions > - root_plug is currently unbuildable because the exports of the cap_* > functions are dropped, it don't need to use them directly Why not fix this, as you just broke it :) > - if the modules don't define a function, the call always travers > through the stack until it hits the dummy module > - more pointer needs to be dereferences, more parameter How does the performance of this work out, if you only have 1 security module? In my opinion, preformance should not drop, unless you want to stack modules. And did you see the previous stacker lsm module? What advantage does this patch over that one? 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 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 16:39:29 PDT