Re: Some New Hooks

Previous message: Chris Wright: "Re: permissive vs. restrictive issue and solutions..."
In reply to: Chris Vance: "Some New Hooks"
Next in thread: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Some New Hooks"
Reply: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Some New Hooks"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

chrisat_private

* Chris Vance (cvanceat_private) wrote:
> 
> By way of introduction, I am at NAI Labs working on SELinux. 
> 
> Attached is a patch against the current LSM patched 2.4.5 kernel,
> dated May 30, 2001 (selinux-lsm-patch). I have also attached the
> SELinux implementation for these new hooks (hooks.c), to help explain
> why they are necessary.
> 
> I realize that we have not reached a consensus on what a consistent
> hook interface should look like, but in the meantime I would like to
> continue moving foward by identifying locations where hooks are
> necessary.

Thanks Chris.  I'll work on applying the patch.  BTW, I know you weren't
necessarily looking for feedback on your module.  But some quick
observations...

The init funcition can leave your sys_calls registered even if the
register_security call fails.  Is that intentional?  Simlarly, the exit
function sets the sys_calls to NULL.  Shouldn't they be sys_ni_syscall
instead?

-chris

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module