Re: Detecting missing hook functions

Previous message: richard offer: "Authoritative hooks updated to 2.4.13"
In reply to: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Detecting missing hook functions"
Next in thread: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Detecting missing hook functions"
Next in thread: David Wheeler: "Re: Detecting missing hook functions"
Reply: Stephen Smalley: "Re: Detecting missing hook functions"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

chrisat_private

* Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> 
> > If there isn't any easier way, I'll submit a patch to expand verify to
> > cover all of the current hooks.
> 
> A patch to expand the verify function to cover all current hooks is
> attached.

hmmm...i was thinking in terms of something more automated.  not sure of
the pitfalls here, but assuming everyone makes there structs static so
the empty holes are zero filled...

#define VERIFY_STRUCT(type, s) \
        do { \
                unsigned int size = sizeof(#type); \
                unsigned long start = (unsigned long)s; \
                unsigned long end = (unsigned long)s + size; \
                while (start != end) { \
                        if (!*(long*)start) { \
                                printk("error!\n"); \
                                break; \
                        } \
                        start += sizeof(void *); \
                } \
        } while (0) 

whaddya think?

-chris

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module