Re: [PATCH] 4/5: LSM hooks rework

2005-02-14 Thread Rik van Riel
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Kurt Garloff wrote: I sent out the full patch set, which moves the code from vanilla to the code we've been shipping since 7 months. Heh, it sounds like such a step back when it's said like that ;) If we can't find consensus for patches 4 and 5, I'd still think applying 1 -- 3

Re: [PATCH] 4/5: LSM hooks rework

2005-02-14 Thread Kurt Garloff
Hi Rik, On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 11:54:07AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Kurt Garloff wrote: > > >The case that security_ops points to the default capability_ > >security_ops is the fast path and arguably the more likely one > >on most systems. > > Quite a few distributions s

Re: [PATCH] 4/5: LSM hooks rework

2005-02-14 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Kurt Garloff wrote: The case that security_ops points to the default capability_ security_ops is the fast path and arguably the more likely one on most systems. Quite a few distributions ship with other security modules enabled by default, so I'm not sure we should add a "likel

[PATCH] 4/5: LSM hooks rework

2005-02-13 Thread Kurt Garloff
From: Kurt Garloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Consider the capability case the likely one References: 40217, 39439 The case that security_ops points to the default capability_ security_ops is the fast path and arguably the more likely one on most systems. So mark it likely to tell the compiler t