Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:59:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:59:05 -0400 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:44029 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:59:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:05:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro To: Greg KH cc: Christoph Hellwig , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security In-Reply-To: <20021017185352.GA32537@kroah.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1018 Lines: 27 On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Greg KH wrote: > Yes, it's a big switch, but what do you propose otherwise? SELinux > would need a _lot_ of different security calls, which would be fine, but ... or somebody willing to try and come up with decent API. Had you reviewed their extra syscalls, BTW? Do it - and remove sharp objects before that... > we don't want to force every security module to try to go through the > process of getting their own syscalls. ... or, heaven forbid, actually designing interfaces instead of putting together piles of kludges. Can't have it... > And other subsystems in the kernel do the same thing with their syscall, > like networking, so there is a past history of this usage. Overloadable by arbitrary protocol family driver? Where? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/