Re: State of Audit Proposal ?

From: Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 12:25:22 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Patch Acceptance Procedure"

    On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 12:05:12PM -0700, KRAMER,STEVEN (HP-USA,ex1) wrote:
    > Are we to use the Linux man pages as a functional spec for the interfaces
    > that LSM must continue to respect?
    
    If this were *BSD, where the manpages are kept reliably up-to-date, I'd
    unhesitatingly say Yes. However, given that some of these manpages
    haven't been touched since 1994 or earlier, perhaps there is some other
    source that we shold be using instead?
    
    My guess says we just ought not return things different from the current
    kernel.
    
    > Has anyone taken the LSM changes, looked at the current state of the
    > hooks, and made sure you're not creating situations where an incorrect
    > errno will be returned?
    
    If I understand the hook structure, it is up to the individual module
    authors to get this right. Perhaps the LSM documentation could make a
    note of 'expected' error values that a well-behaved module may want to
    stick to using?
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 Jul 23 2001 - 12:22:26 PDT