Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59

[Chris Wright]

* Christoph Hellwig ([e-mail]) wrote:
> 
> And that for examples is a very important and needed change.  Security
> modules as loadable modules are a bad idea as you don't have a consistand
> labelling state - just look at the older selinux versions with all the
> precondition mess.  But it should be generalized to a new initcall level
> instead of the current explicit call to the selinux routine..

I wrote such a patch last summer.  I'll rebase it to current and post it
(most likely when i return from .se).  It needs to be separte from
normal initcalls since they all happen too late.
-chris