Crispin Cowan wrote:
>
> Modules that can be loaded, or not, are the obvious solution, but the
> current LKM does not export sufficient hooks to support many security
> mechanisms.
Have you taken a look at the hooks provided with the patch provided with
the Linux Trace Toolkit (http://www.opersy
> > Proper place to do this discussion is
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> It sounds good in theory. In practice, though, almost all of the
> design discussions have been occuring in private e-mail.
> For example, I have seen none of the messages discussing
> the changes planned for the power manage
Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 07:30:36PM -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> LKML
>>
>> Comments?
>
>
> Proper place to do this discussion is [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 07:30:36PM -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> LKML
>
> Comments?
Proper place to do this discussion is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The amount of traffic w
Hi,
Since the 2.5 kernel development will require continued module
architecture changes to accomodate power management, pluggable
security and PCMCIA in the kernel tree, it would seem to make
sense that the various groups that are doing module related
architecture changes collaborate and be aware
One of the byproducts of the Linux 2.5 Kernel Summit
http://lwn.net/2001/features/KernelSummit/ was the notion of an
enhancement of the loadable kernel module interface to facilitate
security-oriented kernel modules. The purpose is to ease the tension
between folks (such as Immunix and SELinux) w
6 matches
Mail list logo
