On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote: > > Also, in its current state, this hook doesn't actually have input into > the return value of get_write_access -- our application doesn't need it. > If you think your application could benefit from having the hook have > some input to the decision, let me know, and I can fix it. :) Um, hooks that do nothing but let the module know what the kernel is doing at a point in time, don't seem to be under the lsm charter right now. Like David Wagner said, it smells like audit. What are you trying to solve here? Every place get_write_access() is called, a different hook is called previously. Or do you really want to catch the time hpfs calls it? :) And if you really need get_write_access(), why not also put_write_access()? 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 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 21:59:08 PDT