On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 14:00 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > We are still calling secondary_ops->sysctl even though the capabilities > > module does not define a sysctl operation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Applied. > > And repeating what I said back in January when the other calls to > secondary_ops were removed: > > At that point secondary_ops would only be used by selinux_init() to save > the original security_ops pointer for use by selinux_disable() to > restore the original pointer, which ideally would be handled by the > security framework instead (possibly by restoring a limited > unregister_security() that resets to the default_security_ops). It's listed in the TODO list: http://selinuxproject.org/page/Kernel_Development -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
