Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable

From: Stephen Smalley (sds@private)
Date: Wed Oct 27 2004 - 14:12:30 PDT

Previous message: Chris Wright: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
In reply to: Valdis.Kletnieks@private: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Next in thread: Chris Wright: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 17:11, Valdis.Kletnieks@private wrote:
> Let me go ponder, I'll get back to this if/when I've cogitated more.. ;)
> 
> What's the consensus - if these tightenings are done, should they just be
> done and see what breaks, or should they have an m4 ifdef around them and
> an entry in tunables/tunable.tun?

I'd start unconditional, and only make them conditional if necessary. 
And use booleans, not tunables.  

-- 
Stephen Smalley <sds@private>
National Security Agency

Previous message: Chris Wright: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
In reply to: Valdis.Kletnieks@private: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Next in thread: Chris Wright: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Replace security fields with hashtable"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 14:16:41 PDT