>>> Or, there could be a `securelevel' with exactly two states (0 and
>>> 1), where `0' indicates two-way security switch sysctls, and `1'
>>> indicates one-way settings.
>> I think a tri-state secure level is fine (0, 1, 2), but I DO like
>> the idea of one-way sysctls's.
> Well, if the security functionality is based on sysctls, what does a
> tri-state securelevel do?  ;)

Two answers come to mind.

(1) securelevel=0 -> no sysctls are one-way
    securelevel=1 -> security sysctls are one-way
    securelevel=2 -> security sysctls are read-only

(2) securelevel is a write-only sysctl.  Setting it to 1 turns on some
    of the (other) security sysctls; setting it to 2 turns on those
    plus some more.  (The idea is to get more or less the functionality
    of the old securelevel scheme....)

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B