Re: Port of secure fd handling to LSM

Previous message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: Port of secure fd handling to LSM"
In reply to: richard offer: "Port of secure fd handling to LSM"
Next in thread: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Port of secure fd handling to LSM"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

dawat_private

richard offer  wrote:
>Can we have our fds in now please ? :-)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand.  This patch doesn't need any support
for passing fds to, e.g., read().  What additional hooks were you asking
for, specifically?  If you were asking for passing an additional fd
parameter to read(), why would this example provide supporting evidence
for making such a change?  I apologize if I'm being dense: can you spell
out your reasoning in detail for me?

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