2.5.27: s390 fixes.
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 1 line
* add
sys_securitysystem call
I do not see the body of the call in the attached patch.
-- Pete
Quoted 3 lines · Pete Zaitcev
Quoted 1 line
* add
sys_securitysystem callI do not see the body of the call in the attached patch.
Does need to. Is yet another magic dispatcher that has randomly changing behaviour depending on the linux crap^H^H^H^Hsecurity module loaded.
Quoted 9 lines
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:04:13 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
* add
sys_securitysystem callI do not see the body of the call in the attached patch.
Does need to. Is yet another magic dispatcher that has randomly changing behaviour depending on the linux crap^H^H^H^Hsecurity module loaded.
I just realized that it comes from the LSM. Sorry.
Why does it need to be added into the architecture and not kept together with the patch-2.5.27-lsm1.gz or such? I am afraid that precludes compilation of architectures without LSM applied.
-- Pete
Quoted 10 lines · Pete Zaitcev
Quoted 9 lines
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:04:13 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
* add
sys_securitysystem callI do not see the body of the call in the attached patch.
Does need to. Is yet another magic dispatcher that has randomly changing behaviour depending on the linux crap^H^H^H^Hsecurity module loaded.
Quoted 6 lines
I just realized that it comes from the LSM. Sorry.
Why does it need to be added into the architecture and not kept together with the patch-2.5.27-lsm1.gz or such? I am afraid that precludes compilation of architectures without LSM applied.
Because the LSM framework is now in the kernel, including sys_security.
thanks,
greg k-h