Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@private):
> * Serge E. Hallyn (serue@private) wrote:
> > Quoting Stephen Smalley (sds@private):
> > Now... why are unregister_security and mod_reg_security different, other
> > than for symmetry? Why couldn't we just have
> >
> > int unregister_security(const char *name, struct security_operations *ops)
> > {
> > if (ops == security_ops) {
> > security_ops = &dummy_security_ops;
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > return security_ops->unregister_security(name, ops);
> > }
>
> We decided that a module should have full control over whether it's
> primary or secondary. Ideally, with stacking the mod_reg stuff could go
> away.
Agreed, we could consider getting rid of mod_reg_security altogether. But
right now I'm just suggesting keeping mod_reg_security, and getting rid of
mod_unreg_security. The module can control how it's loaded, but there's no
point (I can see) controlling how it's unloaded.
Several module_exit()s could become a little cleaner...
Or do I misunderstand what you're saying?
thanks,
-serge
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 09:01:02 PST