Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security

Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-18T12:46:47Z

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:31:35AM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> That's interesting. Passing a completely opaque value (actually an
> integer) through the system call was exactly what we designed it to do,
> because we saw a design need for pecisely that: so that applications
> with awareness of a specific module can talk to the module.
>
> Could you elaborate on why this is a sign of trouble, design wise?

Because we already have such a syscall (ioctl) and we see the trouble it
causes all over the place. Design yur interfaces properly instead.

> >If we do things such as the fs stacking or fs filter ideas,
> >that eliminates a whole swath of the facilities the security_ops
> >"provide". No ugly syscalls passing opaque types through the kernel
> >to some magic module, but rather a real facility that is useful
> >to many things other than LSM.
> >
> Yes, that will be wonderful. And the LSM team will be pleased to re-work
> the desing when stackable file systems appear and we can take advantage
> of them.

So do it know. It's possible and it just shows you've sent the LSM crap
without actually thinking about a better design. Come back when you
have a proper design.

and btw, as LSM is part of the kernel anyone can and will change it.
Your LSM team attitude is a bit like that hated CVS mentality..