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..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/