Re: Detecting missing hook functions

From: Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private)
Date: Thu Oct 25 2001 - 10:45:45 PDT

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "Re: Detecting missing hook functions"

    On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Chris Wright wrote:
    
    > properly incrementing the SECURITY_INTERFACE_VERSION in security.h when
    > the interface changes would help.
    
    I don't think that incrementing the version would have helped in this case
    (or in many similar situations).  Incrementing the version number only
    ensures that we don't load a security module that was compiled against an
    older version of LSM.  In this case, I was recompiling SELinux against
    the newer versions of LSM, and had even updated it to include all of the
    other hooks that had been added, but missed the getscheduler hook.  The
    compiler doesn't give any warning in this situation, and verify only
    checks the top-level function pointers.
    
    If there isn't any easier way, I'll submit a patch to expand verify to
    cover all of the current hooks.
    
    --
    Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
    ssmalleyat_private
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Thu Oct 25 2001 - 10:47:24 PDT