On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 17:34 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 05:07:40PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > Andrew, all,
> >
> > Is there any reason this patch could not go for a spin in a -mm tree?
> > It's similar to Guillaume's fork connector patch which did appear in -mm
> > at one point. It replaces the fork_advisor patch that ELSA is currently
> > using, can be used by userspace CKRM code, and in general is useful for
> > anything that may wish to monitor changes in all processes.
>
> Why can't you use a lsm module for this instead? It looks like you are
> wanting to hook things in pretty much the same places we currently have
> the lsm hooks at.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Guillaume apparently tried to use LSM for his fork connector and was
told "this doesn't belong here":
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0502.2/1000.html
This patch does not affect whether or not these operations succeed and
hence is a poor match for LSM even though it hooks into the same places
in the kernel.
There has been some discussion on lse-tech about 'task_notifiers' that
would allow multiple modules to hook into these paths without polluting
the paths themselves. I modified the patch with these proposals in mind.
Then, assuming such an interface developed, I could submit a small patch
which would convert to using the new interface.
Would you still rather see the patch as an LSM module?
Thanks,
-Matt Helsley
< matthltc @ us.ibm.com >
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
