Re: post_mountroot

Previous message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: post_mountroot"
In reply to: Stephen Smalley: "Re: post_mountroot"
Next in thread: Serge E. Hallyn: "Re: post_mountroot"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

gregat_private

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 04:51:39PM -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> 
> > This sounds like a good solution to me.
> 
> Ok, here is a patch for consideration.  If it looks ok to everyone, I'll
> commit it tomorrow.  Do we also want to make the corresponding change to
> the post_mountroot hook in the 2.4 tree for consistency?

Looks good.  I'd say change the 2.4 tree too, but that depends on what
people want to see the 2.4 tree do.  Some of the future changes to the
vfs layer will be hard to backport to 2.4.

One minor nit with the patch:

> ===== security/dte/dte-funcs.c 1.5 vs edited =====
> --- 1.5/security/dte/dte-funcs.c	Thu Nov 15 15:07:30 2001
> +++ edited/security/dte/dte-funcs.c	Tue Dec 18 16:41:16 2001
> @@ -2225,14 +2225,20 @@
>  	unlock_kernel();
>  }
>  
> -void dte_post_mountroot (struct super_block *sb) 
> +void dte_post_mountroot (void)
>  {
> +        struct super_block *sb;

Should use a <tab> there, instead of spaces :)

thanks,

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