Re: Out of tree module using LSM

[Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>]

On Dec 2 2007 22:56, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> 
>> We probably want to hear related usages as well - what *besides*
>> A/V would be interested? Indexing services?
>
Indexing services would probably benefit much more from a
recursive-aware inotify, though that has its own sort of problems to
solve first.

>Well... I'd really like to know what A/V people are trying to do.
>
>Indexing services are really different, and doable with recursive
>m-time Jan is preparing... 
>
m-time <=> modification time?
What am I preparing?

I am actually on a freeze, because I really do not know what to make
of the situation with the static LSM interface.

There is a grave problem with chaining, because you cannot specify
the activation order of one or more LSMs with compiled-in code!

Some kernel Makefiles even contain hints "this depends on link order"
(e.g. net/ipv6/netfilter/Makefile) - and I bet for sure that this
will also be the case for LSM. No thanks.

While we are at it, consider the hypothethical case of a production
server, and the boss tells you to switch to $ThatLSM, with no downtime.
After all, it worked when $Company switched to $ThisLSM with Linux
2.6.x &forall; x<24.
--
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/