Re: handling exec_permission_lite

Previous message: Serge E. Hallyn: "Re: handling exec_permission_lite"
Next in thread: Chris Wright: "Re: handling exec_permission_lite"
Reply: Chris Wright: "Re: handling exec_permission_lite"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

hallynat_private

> There wasn't any patch in that message.

Oops.

fs/namei.c and include/linux/security.h patches attached this time.  I
hope.

> that Al Viro has specifically said on the lkml that he doesn't like using
> flags to indicate that a lock is held, which is why he didn't simply

Clearly that (Al Viro's coding preference) is a very important
consideration.  My own reason for not liking it is that when using just an
additional flag, it may not be clear to future module writers what's
going on.  They'll of course assume that 'mask' means the same thing in
the lsm hook as to permission/exec_permission_lite.  Dangerous.

-serge