On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:17, Keith Owens wrote:
> At 10:15 13-6-2002 +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> >I wanted to build a system running the XFS file system and Linux Security
> >Modules (LSM), so I had a look at hacking the patch files to make them
> > work.
> >
> >I found one issue where the patches severely conflict, system call 1217 on
> >IA64 is sys_setxattr for XFS and is sys_security for LSM!
>
> The *attr syscall numbers are official, in both Linus and Marcelo
> kernels. LSM is picking an arbitrary syscall number for testing so
> they will have to find another number - and change user space to match.
OK. Shouldn't be a big issue.
> Pity Linus did not take my patch that reserves a range of syscall
> numbers for testing and provides a clean interface for determining
> which number to use. Linus does not consider this to be a problem.
Yes, reserving a separate range for testing would be good, especially if you
can make it work so that patches don't conflict...
BTW XFS also changes the quota system in a serious way which breaks SE Linux
(not LSM).
--
I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software.
If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your
address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the
>From field.
|