> Did you ever try the hybrid approach suggested in > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=108852419220859&w=2? > Two statically allocated entries for primary and secondary module, then > voluntary chaining using a common header (possibly embedded). That > seems like a more promising approach to me than the hashtable. ... > > Do you have anything in mind for how to optimize for one LSM? > > By avoiding any change from the current situation when there is only one > LSM. :) No, I have not tried the hybrid approach James suggested. I'm certainly not opposed to that, but does anyone think (as I my feeling was) that such a thing would be rejected? It seemed clear to me that providing a hashtable would mean the ->security fields would be ripped out. -serge
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 06:18:41 PDT