Hello Greg and all others, good work so far! On Don, 19 Apr 2001 Greg KH wrote: > What I'm most concerned right now is: > - Are the hooks at the right place for everyone? > If not, where should they be? The places look fine for me, but see parameters comment below. > - Are there enough parameters passed in the hook for everyone? > If not, what do people need? For some calls, I would appreciate more parameters (patch order): - ptrace: request, pid - load_elf_binary: rather make general solution for all exec types, with extra security_ops, parameter file - permission: is this meant for Linux DAC compatibility module only? I'd prefer so. - sys_read, sys_write etc.: Use read/write ops, parameter file - umount is missing, param kname or device - mount: all params - delete_module: module name (so we can protect ourselves) - send_file: use read/write ops > - For inodes, do people need more hooks? > If so, what is needed, and where should it go, with what > parameters? I have not yet made a full check for missing calls. > Just my reasoning why I like a simple function call, besides it being the > same type of interface used everywhere else in the kernel source :) Clean function calls for me too, please - one level less to check, if something goes wrong. Amon. _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 19 2001 - 04:08:02 PDT