Re: SECURE_FD OpenWall LSM Patch

nickbat_private

On Wed, 2001-11-21 at 12:03, Seth Arnold wrote:
> 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"? :)
> 

Woops,  chalk that one up to poor eyesight.

> 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!

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