Re: linux-security-module digest, Vol 1 #165 - 9 msgs

Previous message: Casey Schaufler: "Re: Changes to LSM phase 1 for audit."
Next in thread: Crispin Cowan: "Names vs. Inodes"
Reply: Crispin Cowan: "Names vs. Inodes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

dwheelerat_private

Greg KH wrote:
> Since the fd is only needed for audit, can we agree that this change
> will be postponed until "stage 2"?

Casey Schaufler replied:
>Sure, we could, but I'd like to see a good reason not to
>make it before it gets tossed.

I don't see any critical reason for _not_ passing the fd, and I think
a reasonable explanation's been made as to why the fd is needed
(e.g., you CAN'T get it from the other structures, given dup(2)).
There are lots of hooks and data values that someone _doesn't_ use, but
if we know someone actually needs it _now_, let's put it in now. It'll
make it easier for everyone to transition to "stage 2".

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