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

From: Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private)
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 12:40:17 PST

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "[ANNOUNCE] 2002_02_12 patch against 2.5.4"

    On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Huagang Xie wrote:
    
    > here is a patch for this hooks..I just add it in fs/exec.c, does this
    > sound good ?
    
    In general, it would help if you submitted a complete patch, i.e. one that
    updates 'include/linux/security.h' and the example security modules under
    the 'security' directory.  At a minimum, you should include trivial hook
    functions for the dummy and capability modules (they can just return 0),
    and it would be nice to do so for all of the example modules.
    
    Also, as several people have suggested, you should rename the hook to
    something more appropriate.  Even check_bprm would be better than
    post_alloc_security.
    
    I agree that a new hook is reasonable here - moving the set_security hook
    or the prepare_binprm call seems like a worse option.
    
    --
    Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
    ssmalleyat_private
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 Feb 08 2002 - 16:00:05 PST