On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:00:03 PDT, richard offer <offerat_private> said: > Not to get defensive, but I didn't say anything about adding code for > audit, I just wanted to see if anyone had worked around the same issue and > if so, what subtle logic was I missing. I obviously mis-read it the first time - *I* thought you were commenting that the hook wasn't given enough information to know if we were dealing with a chdir/getwd(), or if we were walking a filename prepratory to actually open()ing it or something. I couldn't think of a security policy that would say "I'll let you walk path A/B/C for *this* but not for *that*", but one could exist I suppose? /Valdis _______________________________________________ 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 26 2001 - 18:46:37 PDT