* frm sdsat_private "08/08/01 11:22:32 -0400" | sed '1,$s/^/* /' * * * On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, richard offer wrote: * *> I thought that that was some consensus about the intention of always *> calling the post hooks, not just when there was no error. *> *> Its widley perceived by Linus to be quicker to do a call and return than *> check and then call. *> *> One of our patches rectified that. * * My patch (and Serge's patch) was simply adding another call to * the existing post_lookup hook to cover a case that was previously * missed. With regard to checking and calling, there isn't any additional * check here - the existing code already checks for an error and branches * accordingly, so inserting a hook into the success code path doesn't add * any checking. I think that the same is true for the post_create/mkdir/... * hooks - the existing code already had a check and branch. * * I think I mentioned in my feedback on SGI's patch that changing * the post_create/post_mkdir/... hooks to always be called and * pass the error seemed reasonable to me. But I'm not sure it * will be of much use to you for post_lookup. The intent of post_lookup * is to allow the module to set the security attributes on the newly looked * up inode. What would a module if post_lookup were called in the * failure case? I don't know (I haven't worked how we could use the hook yet), but I think for consistancy sake it would be benefitial. Either way. * * -- * Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs richard. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Offer Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI "Specialization is for insects" _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 09:08:01 PDT