Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:07:23PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> But this will require every security module project to petition for a
> syscall, which would be a pain, and is the whole point of having this
> sys_security call.

And the whole point of the reemoval is to not make adding syscalls
easy.  Adding a syscall needs review and most often you actually want
a saner interface.

> How would they be done differently now?  Multiple different syscalls?

Yes.

> 
> I do know that Dave Miller has also complained about the sys_security
> call in the past, and the difficulties along the same lines as the
> ioctl 32bit problem.  If we were to go to individual syscalls for every
> security function, this would go away.

Yes, doing the 32bit translation for a call where you don't actually
know what the arguments mean is impossible.  See the 32bit ioctl
compatiblity mess.