> >What would people think of a defined interface to allow the LSM to > >tell the application more than 'errno = EFASCIST; return', [...] > > > >"On an access error, the LSM will set the process external var 'errno' > >to EFASCIST, and fill in the structure pointed to by the user process > >'struct *lsm_opaque_data *sec_err_explain' (after checking that the > >pointer is non-NIL and in the address space and all that)". > > My initial reaction is that, whatever you decide, LSM's should not be > required to use this facility. If you want to build a LSM that requires > this facility, I don't mind, but when I build the Janus-like LSM, I think > I'd prefer not to be forced to mess with this. Whether or not to return > more detailed error messages looks an awful lot like policy, doesn't it? I would have to agree that this functionality comes from the module land. Just thinking, all the kernel will do is call the hooks that the security manager has set, and check to see if the hook passed/failed.. I think that the module could have a mechanism (interface) so that once something failed and the kernel set the errno and returned, a user could ask the module for the last error's details. Just an idea. Kurt P. Hundeck _______________________________________________ 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 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 12:36:57 PDT