libsmack 1.1: support for load-self

[jarkkojs]

I think it would make sense to add functions for load-self to 1.1 release.

[jobol]

On lun, 2014-03-17 at 23:50 -0700, jsakkine wrote:

I think it would make sense to add functions for load-self to 1.1
release.

I agree!

I'm currently working on a smack-launcher using that interface.
https://github.com/jobol/smaunch

José

PS: I made some smack-utils specific development for it using a
different way of thinking. The object is not to fork but to explore...

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[jarkkojs]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:14:49AM -0700, jobol wrote:

On lun, 2014-03-17 at 23:50 -0700, jsakkine wrote:

I think it would make sense to add functions for load-self to 1.1
release.

I agree!

I'm currently working on a smack-launcher using that interface.
https://github.com/jobol/smaunch

OK, great. I though that it could be useful addition and I also suggest
creating issues for other things that might be useful for the API.

José

/Jarkko

[jarkkojs]

I would add a new function smack_accesses_apply2 with a flags parameter so that in future there's more resistance to API additions.

[jobol]

good idea, I approve

[rafal-krypa]

That name may suggest, that it uses load2 kernel interface. How about
smack_accesses_apply_new or smack_accesses_apply_ng?
21 mar 2014 07:15 "jsakkine" [email protected] napisał(a):

I would add a new function smack_accesses_apply2 with a flags parameter
so that in future there's more resistance to API additions.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/101#issuecomment-38251577
.

[jobol]

I dont feel that the ambiguity is very high between apply2 and load2 but I admit that it exists an ambiguity.
It makes me think that if smack_accesses_apply becomes deprecated the transition to using smack_accesses_apply2 or smack_accesses_apply_ng might be a nightmare.
Maybe a better choice would be to use a very different name like smack_accesses_assign or smack_accesses_execute or ....

[jobol]

I got an other idea: using special (negatives) fd in smack_accesses_save would allow to remove any apply. Special values for fd could be:

• apply (for load, load2, change-rules)
• self (for load-self or load-self2)

and also values for specific interface

Also in that case the name smack_accesses_writemay better fit.