On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 09:33 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > --- Casey Schaufler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.22-base/Documentation/dontdiff > > > > linux-2.6.22-base/include/linux/security.h > > > > linux-2.6.22-audit/include/linux/security.h > > > > --- linux-2.6.22-base/include/linux/security.h 2007-07-08 > > > 16:32:17.000000000 > > > > -0700 > > > > +++ linux-2.6.22-audit/include/linux/security.h 2007-08-01 > > > 20:14:18.000000000 > > > > -0700 > > > > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ > > > > #include <net/flow.h> > > > > > > > > struct ctl_table; > > > > +struct audit_krule; > > > > +struct selinux_audit_rule; > > > > > > selinux_audit_rule in LSM interface? > > > > The structure needs a new name. Any objections to audit_rule_lsm? > > I'd suggest security_audit_rule, but that doesn't say anything about > > where to look to see how it gets used. > > Actually, it's worse than that because an selinux_audit_rule really > is SELinux specific. Any problem with making the security_audit_rule > interfaces use a void * ? The audit code appears to be accomodating.
The struct is already opaque outside of the security module, so you can just rename it and implement your own version of the struct in your module. -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
