Re: syscall convention

From: Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private)
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 06:17:43 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [PATCH] Authoritative hooks"

    On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Greg KH wrote:
    
    > However we are not forcing anyone to support this within the current lsm
    > patch.  So the current lsm syscall interface will stay the same as it
    > currently is (which does allow you to do this if you so desire).
    
    See the tail end of Crispin's notes about the discussion at the Usenix
    Security BOF at  
    http://mail.wirex.com/pipermail/linux-security-module/2001-August/001663.html.
    
    I again asked for an additional integer parameter in the sys_security
    interface and syscall hook that could (optionally) be used by the module
    for the purpose of module identification.  The parameter would just
    be passed through by the sys_security call to the syscall hook.  I
    also asked that the dummy module's syscall hook return -ENOSYS.  And
    likewise for the capability plug, until such a time as the capability
    module actually implements new system calls other than the existing
    capget/capset.
    
    To my surprise, WireX seemed ok with the idea, and everyone else seemed
    to want it.  But you weren't there, so feel free to chime in now.
    
    An alternative would be to use some of the bits of the call parameter
    to identify the module.  But I would prefer a separate parameter for 
    this purpose, and it doesn't seem to impose any significant burden on the
    interface to pass 3 words rather than 2.
    
    --
    Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
    ssmalleyat_private
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 22 2001 - 06:19:50 PDT