* Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote: > > 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. indeed, i typed too quickly. luckily the times i've missed a hook, the compiler did catch the mismatch. > If there isn't any easier way, I'll submit a patch to expand verify to > cover all of the current hooks. i guess that'll work in the meantime. thanks, -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 : Thu Oct 25 2001 - 12:11:26 PDT