Re: SECURE_FD OpenWall LSM Patch

Previous message: richard offer: "Re: SECURE_FD OpenWall LSM Patch"
In reply to: Nick Bellinger: "SECURE_FD OpenWall LSM Patch"
Next in thread: Nick Bellinger: "Re: SECURE_FD OpenWall LSM Patch"
Reply: Nick Bellinger: "Re: SECURE_FD OpenWall LSM Patch"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

sarnoldat_private

On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 06:48:15PM -0700, Nick Bellinger wrote:

Nick, this is great. :) Many thanks to you, Emily, and Richard. ("Mr
Offer" :)

I am a little curious if the following is a typo, or if this is really
what is intended:

> +static void do_owlsm_binprm_free_security(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> +{
> +       int i;
> +       struct secure_fds *s_fds = ( struct secure_fds *)
> &bprm->security;
> +
> +       if (s_fds->fd_mask) {
> +               for (i = 0; i <= 2; i++) {
> +                       if ( s_fds->fd_mask & ( 1 << 1 ))
                                                 ~~~~~~~~
> +                               (void) sys_close(i);
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       kfree(bprm->security);
> +
> +}

Should that read: "1 << i" ? If it really *does* mean to read "1 << 1",
would the code be cleaner to just use "2"? :)

Thanks again. :)

-- 
The Bill of Rights: 7 out of 10 rights haven't been sold yet! Contact
your congressman for details how *you* can buy one today!