Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

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..