RE: Making forward progress

From: Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2001 - 12:11:37 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Problems with some of the current hooks"

    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
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 12:13:40 PDT