Re: replacements for attach_pathlabel

Previous message: richard offer: "Re: Hooks, authority, MAC, the future and proposol"
In reply to: David Wagner: "Re: replacements for attach_pathlabel"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

hallynat_private

Actually, now that you mention that, i don't think the post_graft call
in do_loopback should be there.  The path_walk on old_name should ensure
that the inode is labeled before we get to the graft_tree.  In my case,
anyway.

Anyone else planning to use either of the instances of graft_tree, and
need both?

-serge

> Would it be better to place the calls to security_ops->post_graft()
> at the end of the graft_tree() function itself, rather than placing
> it at each place that calls graft_tree()?  It seems less likely that
> you'll forgot a case this way.

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