On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > I tried doing something along these lines in the SELinux module, and ran > into another problem (besides the interrupt issue). Since do_fork does a > '*p = *current;' and we do not clear p->security before calling > security_ops->task_ops->alloc_security(p), the module task_alloc_security > function above will incorrectly assume that the security blob is already > set rather than allocating a new blob for the new process. So perhaps we > should explicitly clear p->security in do_fork before calling the hook? That's a good idea. Does anyone have an objection to this? If not, I'll add it to the tree. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ 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 Sep 05 2001 - 13:22:27 PDT