Re: question about bprm_ops->alloc_security(&bprm)

xieat_private

If the 
	security_ops->bprm_ops->free_security(&bprm);
can take a retval as a return value, it will be good for me.
like,
	       if (retval >= 0) {
                /* execve success */
                retval = security_ops->bprm_ops->free_security(&bprm);
                return retval;
        }

-h

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Chris Wright wrote:

> * Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Huagang Xie wrote:
> > >
> > >      a new hook after the copy_string()
> > >
> > > 		security_ops->bprm_ops->post_alloc_security(&bprm);
> > 
> > This seems preferable, although it should use a more descriptive name.
> > I assume that you want this hook to be able to return an error value.
> > 
> > I don't have any objection to such a hook.  Others?
> 
> is it possible to delay such a hook until, say flush_old_exec?  or perhaps
> this is enough justification for moving prepare_binprm to after the
> copy_strings since set_security should have enough info to label
> accurately.  hmm, i suppose the capabilities pieces that are in
> set_security don't rely on being inside of prepare_binprm, so we could
> conceivably just move that hook.  i'll stop thinking out loud now... ;-)
> 
> i'd rather not introduce new hooks if we can solve the problem with
> existing hooks.
> 
> thanks,
> -chris
> 

-- 
Happy Hacking
LIDS secure linux kernel
http://www.lids.org/
1024D/B6EFB028 		4731 2BF7 7735 4DBD 3771  4E24 B53B B60A B6EF B028

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