On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 02:35  PM, Bill Studenmund wrote:

> So? You're saying that kernfs does somethign well, and is the best 
> choice
> in certain circumstances? So why not use it? If that means it's what's
> needed (i.e. required), then so be it. We can see what we think about 
> it,
> and go from there.

The point is that kernfs is NOT REQUIRED to fix the problem.  You can 
completely fix the problem within PF_KEY, as Matt Thomas pointed out.

         -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>