* jmjonesat_private (jmjonesat_private) wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, richard offer wrote: > > > In particular, I'm not adding any security specifics to the patch. LSM is > > it. Which is why we still want FD's :-) > > I still want userspace specified filenames, which I have "silenced" about > entirely on the assurance that 2.5 will change this. I am working on a patch to 2.4 that (if i'm lucky) will look like the 2.5 changes (moving to dentry/vfsmount instead of inode). > FD's are useful to me, in that regard, but, since they're indexes that > don't have "heft", I'd rather see the userspace-specified filename be > passed to the module, somehow (perhaps with PID and FD data, > simultaneously, or even INODE indexed, which interleaves into the current > paradigm for control.) i don't really understand. pid is current->pid. the fd doesn't give you a lot more than a (struct file *) which has a vfsmount and dentry (needed for the absolute pathname) and the dentry contains the inode. what specifically do you need? -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 : Tue Sep 04 2001 - 16:29:41 PDT