Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 04:10:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 04:10:35 -0400 Received: from d06lmsgate-4.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.4]:47787 "EHLO d06lmsgate-4.uk.ibm.COM") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 04:10:35 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.4 Ready list - Kernel Hooks To: Greg KH Cc: Rob Landley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Richard J Moore , S Vamsikrishna , Werner Almesberger X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Richard J Moore" Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:10:13 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML023/06/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 23/10/2002 09:16:36 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: 1046 Lines: 31 >On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 12:09:38AM +0100, Richard J Moore wrote: >> We created >> kernel hooks for exactly the same reasons that LSM needs hooks - to allow >> ancillary function to exist outside the kernel, to avoid kernel bloat, to >> allow more than one function to be called from a given call-back (think of >> kdb and kprobes - both need to be called from do_debug). > >No, that is NOT the same reason LSM needs hooks! LSM hooks are there to >mediate access to various kernel objects, from within the kernel itself. >Please do not confuse LSM with any of the above projects. > >thanks, > >greg k-h I would have to understand what you meant by "mediate between various kernel objects" to know whether LSM's need for hooks is radically different to RAS needs. Can you explain further? Richard - 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/