On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:41:59AM +0100, Sam Vilain wrote: > > > > guess we need some central syscall switch, as proposed > > > > by yourself, and a nice (working) concept for context > > > > creation, manipulation and destruction ... > > > Or we reuse some other security framework's system call > > > for that, if possible. > > if appropriate .. > > (I have no problem with sharing ;) > > Excellent, so we'd take the problem of allocating a syscall, which > translates to performing an action based on the value of a CPU > register inside the syscall switch, and move it to being a problem for > allocating the values of another kernel-side switch, inside one of > those switches! As Hal Fulton would say, "Complexity cannot be > destroyed, it can only be transferred from one place to another." > > Seriously, though - I don't think this is necessarily a good idea > unless there is a strong relevance between the functionality of the > two syscalls, or if they are otherwise grouped. For instance, it > would add complexity to have the quota enhancements use the same > syscalls as set_ipv4root.
the quota enhancements use the quotactl interface provided for such stuff ... so that isn't a good example ... more to this as reply to Rik's answer ... best, Herbert > -- > Sam Vilain, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > An OO surgeon would hand the scalpel to the patient and say: "now > perform this operation on yourself!". > >
