Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security

2007-08-07 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:12:02 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Casey Schaufler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > --- "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Quoting Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:31:12 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn"

Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security

2007-08-07 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 10:05:29AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:31:12 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > For those who don't care about CONFIG

Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security

2007-08-07 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Casey Schaufler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > --- "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Quoting Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:31:12 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >

Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security

2007-08-07 Thread Casey Schaufler
--- "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:31:12 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > For those who don't care about CONFIG_SECURITY. > > >

Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security

2007-08-07 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:31:12 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > For those who don't care about CONFIG_SECURITY. > > > > I'm quite sure we started that way, but the ifdefs were cons

Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security

2007-08-06 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:31:12 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > For those who don't care about CONFIG_SECURITY. > > I'm quite sure we started that way, but the ifdefs were considered > too much of an eyesore. argh, y'all stop top-

Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security

2007-08-06 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Alexey Dobriyan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > For those who don't care about CONFIG_SECURITY. I'm quite sure we started that way, but the ifdefs were considered too much of an eyesore. If this is now acceptable, then the same thing might be considered for inode->i_security, kern_ipc_perm.securit

[PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security

2007-08-06 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
For those who don't care about CONFIG_SECURITY. Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- include/linux/sched.h |3 ++- kernel/fork.c |2 ++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) --- a/include/linux/sched.h +++ b/include/linux/sched.h @@ -1086,8 +1086,9 @@