Re: Problems with some of the current hooks

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Tue Aug 07 2001 - 20:06:31 PDT

  • Next message: Greg KH: "Re: Problems with some of the current hooks"

    On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 09:13:29AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
    > The reason that I "guard" this call to bprm_ops->free_security (which I
    > also did with the sb_ops->free_security call in fs/super.c:read_super)
    > is to skip the call in the case where the alloc_security routine
    > itself failed (it does a 'goto out;' just like the subsequent code
    > on error).  Otherwise, I would need to rearrange the code after the
    > out label and insert a new goto label that would skip the free_security
    > call but do the rest of the cleanup processing.  Also, notice that there 
    > is a precedent for this kind of guard - the existing code does a 'if
    > (bprm.file) fput(bprm.file);' in the same code path.
    Ah, it's on the error path.  No real speed reason here.  That makes
    sense now.
    greg k-h
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 20:09:07 PDT