Re: Authoritative hooks updated to 2.4.13

From: Chris Wright (chrisat_private)
Date: Fri Oct 26 2001 - 12:17:55 PDT

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

    * Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private) wrote:
    > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:31:54AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
    > > 2) The rmb call in ptrace.  I see no valid reason to make this
    > > conditional, and it just makes the code uglier.
    > 
    > The reasoning for putting the rmb() in a conditional is to follow, as
    > closely as possible within the limits of what the LSM patch intends to
    > modify, the pre-LSM ptrace behavior.
    > 
    > Given the extreme difficulties of keeping ptrace sane, I think this is a
    > worth-while goal.
    
    rmb() won't hurt anything here.  i think making it conditional makes it
    possible for future mistakes, as it _is_ important in the success path.
    
    -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 : Fri Oct 26 2001 - 12:23:37 PDT