Here's a small patch against 2.6.13-rc2 that adds securityfs, a virtual
fs that all LSMs can use instead of creating their own. The fs should
be mounted at /sys/kernel/security, and the fs creates that mount point.
This will make the LSB people happy that we aren't creating a new
/my_lsm_fs direct
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:59:50AM -0400, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Here's a small patch against 2.6.13-rc2 that adds securityfs, a virtual
> > fs that all LSMs can use instead of creating their own. The fs should
> > be mounted at /sys/kernel/security, and the fs creates that mou
Greg KH wrote:
> Here's a small patch against 2.6.13-rc2 that adds securityfs, a virtual
> fs that all LSMs can use instead of creating their own. The fs should
> be mounted at /sys/kernel/security, and the fs creates that mount point.
> This will make the LSB people happy that we aren't creating
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 10:12:59PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Wednesday 06 July 2005 10:17, Greg KH wrote:
> > + * TODO:
> > + * I think I can get rid of these default_file_ops, but not quite sure...
> > + */
> > +static ssize_t default_read_file(struct file *file, char __user *b
Hi Greg,
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 10:17, Greg KH wrote:
> + * TODO:
> + * I think I can get rid of these default_file_ops, but not quite sure...
> + */
> +static ssize_t default_read_file(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> + size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> +
Here's a small patch against 2.6.13-rc2 that adds securityfs, a virtual
fs that all LSMs can use instead of creating their own. The fs should
be mounted at /sys/kernel/security, and the fs creates that mount point.
This will make the LSB people happy that we aren't creating a new
/my_lsm_fs direct
6 matches
Mail list logo
