--- Casey Schaufler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.22-base/Documentation/dontdiff > > > linux-2.6.22-base/include/linux/security.h > > > linux-2.6.22-audit/include/linux/security.h > > > --- linux-2.6.22-base/include/linux/security.h 2007-07-08 > > 16:32:17.000000000 > > > -0700 > > > +++ linux-2.6.22-audit/include/linux/security.h 2007-08-01 > > 20:14:18.000000000 > > > -0700 > > > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ > > > #include <net/flow.h> > > > > > > struct ctl_table; > > > +struct audit_krule; > > > +struct selinux_audit_rule; > > > > selinux_audit_rule in LSM interface? > > The structure needs a new name. Any objections to audit_rule_lsm? > I'd suggest security_audit_rule, but that doesn't say anything about > where to look to see how it gets used.
Actually, it's worse than that because an selinux_audit_rule really is SELinux specific. Any problem with making the security_audit_rule interfaces use a void * ? The audit code appears to be accomodating. Casey Schaufler [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
