On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 01:05:40PM -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 01:17 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > Here's a small patch against 2.6.13-rc2 that adds securityfs, a virtual > > fs that all LSMs can use instead of creating their own. The fs should > > be mounted at /sys/kernel/security, and the fs creates that mount point. > > This will make the LSB people happy that we aren't creating a new > > /my_lsm_fs directory in the root for every different LSM. > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@private> > > This looks like a great idea but shouldn't this be mounted in proc? What does securityfs have to do with proc? Nothing. > lsm is very much about processes and very little about hardware, > you'll end up with 2 nebulous filesystems by adding stuff to sys that > belongs in proc. No you will not. The control over the security module will go into securityfs, much like the existing sysfs control for some modules, and separate file systems for others. This will move them all to one sane place. Remember, don't add anything new to proc unless it ONLY deals with processes. thanks, greg k-h
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 10:55:44 PDT