Subject: Re: Upcoming security model abstraction
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Matt Fleming <email@example.com>
Date: 09/03/2006 23:48:02
On 03/09/06, Thomas E. Spanjaard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >>>secmodel/sm_bsd44_foo.c ?
> sm_bdsm? I bet people like that kind of security enforcement ;).
> >>>Or put the security models into src/sys/kern/secmodel_bsd44_* ?
> >>Personally, I think '<model>_<function>.c' is elaborate enough.
> >>I'll go for
> > i vote for secmodel_<model>.c (and secmodel_<model>_foo.c where
> > <model> needs two or more files).
> Or perhaps secmodel/securelevel_<model>.c and secmodel/secmodel_<model>.c:
I'm not really fond of this since 'securelevel' is an implementation
detail of a security model, namely bsd44, and as such should be moved
after the security model name.