[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712022356460.24188@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:15:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, ak@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Out of tree module using LSM
On Dec 2 2007 22:56, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>> We probably want to hear related usages as well - what *besides*
>> A/V would be interested? Indexing services?
>
Indexing services would probably benefit much more from a
recursive-aware inotify, though that has its own sort of problems to
solve first.
>Well... I'd really like to know what A/V people are trying to do.
>
>Indexing services are really different, and doable with recursive
>m-time Jan is preparing...
>
m-time <=> modification time?
What am I preparing?
I am actually on a freeze, because I really do not know what to make
of the situation with the static LSM interface.
There is a grave problem with chaining, because you cannot specify
the activation order of one or more LSMs with compiled-in code!
Some kernel Makefiles even contain hints "this depends on link order"
(e.g. net/ipv6/netfilter/Makefile) - and I bet for sure that this
will also be the case for LSM. No thanks.
While we are at it, consider the hypothethical case of a production
server, and the boss tells you to switch to $ThatLSM, with no downtime.
After all, it worked when $Company switched to $ThisLSM with Linux
2.6.x ∀ x<24.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists