Upcoming security model abstraction

On 03/09/06, Thomas E. Spanjaard <tgennetphreax.net> 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
> >>'secmodel_<model>_<function>.c'.
> > 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:
>
> secmodel/secmodel_bsd44.c
> secmodel/secmodel_russianroulette.c
> secmodel/securelevel_bsd44.c
> secmodel/securelevel_russianroulette.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.

-- 
Thanks,
Matt

http://mattssanctu
ary.blogspot.com