Martin Husemann wrote:

> I probably did not pay attention close enough for the start of this thread or
> have memory swapped out, but I fail to understand the "bsd" part in this
> name. Can someone explain it? Are we going to see a "security.linux" node
> someday? Why not just "security"?

Because that is how it was decided to implement it in FreeBSD.

I have no idea why we have to maintain compatibility in this regard with
FreeBSD, and my suggestion is to have this specific feature (and perhaps
others of the same node in FreeBSD, if decided to implement them) under
a ``security.generic'' or similar node.

Like Rui said, we may want to have various subsystems under ``security''
so, for better organization, it might be better to have the discussed
feature under its own tree. I don't think this is the ``bsd'' security
model, so ``security.bsd'', IMHO, is a *bad* name.

-e.

-- 
Elad Efrat
PGP Key ID: 0x666EB914