Re: Possible system call interface for LSM

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Fri Aug 10 2001 - 18:33:45 PDT

  • Next message: James Morris: "Re: [patch] Socket Receive Hook"

    Most-of-all this being said...
    
    What's the harm in passing a 32-bit checksum (magic number, or whatever)
    through syscall to the hook?
    
    syscall_security
    
    is something new, and won't be called by non-aware applications.
    
    HARM ISSUES:
    
    it's not similar to any previously encorporated interface.  LSM isn't
    either, but pitching the syscall is an isolated circumstance.
    
    HELP ISSUES:
    
    it provides a very fast, deep interface to those module designers who
    would trust such a thing OUTSIDE the "usual interface."
    
    This is (imho) a silly argument over a minor issue.  I hope somebody will 
    pull a trump-card SOON.
    
    J. Melvin Jones
    
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  J. MELVIN JONES            jmjonesat_private 
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  Microcomputer Systems Consultant  
    ||  Software Developer
    ||  Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration
    ||  Network and Systems Administration
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  http://www.jmjones.com/
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 18:34:32 PDT