YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:

> i don't think the veriexec scope is a good idea in general
> or an acceptable solution for my specific case.

That's a different discussion... basically, Veriexec's pseudo
device provides services like loading, unloading, querying,
flushing, etc., and may support a few more in the future.

The idea is to be able to describe each action specifically
rather than a global "can control Veriexec" or "can't", at least
in the kauth(9) layer.

> can you explain why you want to make it veriexec specific?

Why I want to make what Veriexec specific? the scope? because
it collects actions relevant only for Veriexec.

-e.