RE: Making forward progress

Previous message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Problems with some of the current hooks"
In reply to: David Wheeler: "RE: Making forward progress"
Next in thread: jmjonesat_private: "RE: Making forward progress"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

sdsat_private

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, David Wheeler wrote:

> Let's examine a form we've looked at before:
> 
>   retval = (current-DAC-check);
>   if (hook(retval, ...)) ...

This is the form that was implemented in the new LSM patch I posted
back on June 12th (except I typically passed retval as the last
parameter, but no big deal).  I did this for a number of the hooks,
but it was often uglier than you make it appear here due to the
complexity of some of the DAC checks.  Also, I found it impractical
to do it for a number of the hooks due to difficulties in colocating
the DAC checks with the hook placement or tightly couplings between
the DAC checks and the functional logic.

--
Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
ssmalleyat_private

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