* Stephen Smalley (sds@private) wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 09:11, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Deciding on a "proper" location for lsm interaction would be a very good > > thing. > > > > And sys/security seems about as intuitive as possible. > > Last I looked, sysfs wasn't sufficient to implement the kind of > interface needed by SELinux for its policy API, which is why we > implemented selinuxfs instead (based on the example of nfsd, > at Al Viro's suggestion). It certainly depends on what the module wants to export. Something that is a tunable parameter for the module or a similar type of attribute is exactly what should be in sysfs. This discussion comes at the result of /proc abuse, and moving to sysfs necessitates a place holder to anchor things. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 11:28:17 PST