On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, richard offer wrote: > * > * Due to the surrounding kernel logic, we lose the security module's return > * code, but I don't think this is a problem. > > On the whole I don't like losing return values, but in this case it seems > it wasn't useful due to the existing kernel code. Maybe we should document > that this hook really is a boolean type despite it having a return type of > "int". Actually, though the return code is being ignored, the hooks still follow the same format as most other hooks. Return 0 on success and anything else on failure. In an attempt to maintain consistency, I flip the return in the actual hook call. I wasn't sure if there was a precedence for this sort of thing. chris. _______________________________________________ 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 : Mon Aug 27 2001 - 09:45:34 PDT