From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:54:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:54:37 -0400 Received: from c1313109-a.potlnd1.or.home.com ([65.0.121.190]:49423 "HELO kroah.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:54:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:49:53 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, crispin@wirex.com, linux-security-module@wirex.com Subject: Re: Binary only module overview Message-ID: <20010927094953.B24460@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20010926164643.B21369@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.2.19 (i586) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 01:09:27PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > GPL_EXPORT_SYM is coming, has been discussed and tentatively agreed upon > so that we can for example have libraries of GPL code that are GPL module > only usable, while still exporting clear interfaces for nonfree users when > appropriate (eg device drivers) So in your opinion, would making the LSM public functions use GPL_EXPORT_SYM (when it is available) increase the odds of the patch being accepted into the kernel? thanks, greg k-h