On Tuesday 29 January 2008 7:43:11 pm James Morris wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Paul Moore wrote: > > That seems reasonable. By the way, this isn't really related, but is it > > possible to change the NF_IP_PRI_SELINUX_* constants to > > NF_IP_PRI_SECURITY_* for the sake of consistency or are those values > > already visible to userspace? > > They are visible to userspace, and included in glibc headers, but I don't > see any userland use of them via google codesearch or know of a possible > valid use. > > > I suppose we could always rename them anyway and just add a #define for > > compatibility ... > > Yep, if you want to.
Hey, let's not forget I'm the guy that gets into arguments over names that span months :) I think it's a worthwhile change, but only once we have a reason to do so. In my mind this means either another user (not unlikely considering recent events) or something like you are proposing. I'll keep my eyes peeled and throw a patch out when I see an opportunity. -- paul moore linux security @ hp - 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
