Re: OpenAFS in UML
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 05:36:45PM -0600, Ryan Underwood wrote:
>> It doesn't declare a license that is compatible with the GPL. It also
>> modifies the sys_call_table which is nasty, but so far the Linux
>> maintainers have not provided appropriate alternative functionality for
>> the AFS module to hook itself in.
> Maybe that's because what AFS does is plain wrong?
The problem is more that there isn't a particularly good alternative that
doesn't involve patching the kernel. If you have an alternative that
doesn't involve patching the kernel, or alternately have a patch that will
be accepted into the kernel, please speak up! Contact
openafs-devel@openafs.org if you can help with this. Some other people
are already working on finding a better approach for Linux 2.6 (possibly
relying on the Linux security module infrastructure).
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: