From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: james.l.morris@oracle.com (James Morris) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:00:31 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [RFC 0/3] Safe, dynamically (un)loadable LSMs In-Reply-To: References: <20171126221545.GA13751@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal> <8c8dd781-d30a-7105-011d-127cf5188426@schaufler-ca.com> <866f86cf-d28a-3da7-4a2d-cbc5a330bd4a@schaufler-ca.com> Message-ID: To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > Should I respin this patch sans module unloading? Still a set of dynamic > hooks that are independent to allow for sealable memory support. Yes, please. > I'm also wondering what people think of the fs change? I don't think > that it makes a lot of sense just having one giant list. I was thinking > it might make more sense using the module_name instead. I don't know how useful this will be in practice. Who/what will be looking at these entries and why? -- James Morris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html