* Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote: > > On a side note, should the alloc_security and free_security hooks > be made consistent with the other hooks, i.e. passing a pointer > to the object and letting the hook set/free the internal security > field rather than returning/passing the security field itself? > You already have a case where you must pass the object to the > alloc_security hook (for linux_binprm), and it seems like > you might also want the object in inode free_security calls > so that you can clear the inode's entry in the persistent > label mapping. However, in that case, the inode's free_security > hook shouldn't be called until just before calling delete in > iput, so perhaps you want a separate hook for that purpose. yeah, greg and i were planning on making that interface uniform. -chris _______________________________________________ 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 26 2001 - 11:50:57 PDT