From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753416AbXLBXPU (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:15:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751556AbXLBXPH (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:15:07 -0500 Received: from sovereign.computergmbh.de ([85.214.69.204]:56355 "EHLO sovereign.computergmbh.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751531AbXLBXPG (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:15:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:15:04 +0100 (CET) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Pavel Machek cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com, Andi Kleen , ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Out of tree module using LSM In-Reply-To: <20071202215634.GB2438@elf.ucw.cz> Message-ID: References: <20071201084332.GB4446@ucw.cz> <17957.1196624688@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20071202202240.GB1625@elf.ucw.cz> <23463.1196629795@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20071202215634.GB2438@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Dec 2 2007 22:56, Pavel Machek wrote: >> >> We probably want to hear related usages as well - what *besides* >> A/V would be interested? Indexing services? > Indexing services would probably benefit much more from a recursive-aware inotify, though that has its own sort of problems to solve first. >Well... I'd really like to know what A/V people are trying to do. > >Indexing services are really different, and doable with recursive >m-time Jan is preparing... > m-time <=> modification time? What am I preparing? I am actually on a freeze, because I really do not know what to make of the situation with the static LSM interface. There is a grave problem with chaining, because you cannot specify the activation order of one or more LSMs with compiled-in code! Some kernel Makefiles even contain hints "this depends on link order" (e.g. net/ipv6/netfilter/Makefile) - and I bet for sure that this will also be the case for LSM. No thanks. While we are at it, consider the hypothethical case of a production server, and the boss tells you to switch to $ThatLSM, with no downtime. After all, it worked when $Company switched to $ThisLSM with Linux 2.6.x ∀ x<24.