* Serge E. Hallyn (hallynat_private) wrote: > > 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. Thanks for looking at it and putting another idea on the table. I guess we'll stick with the extra hook for clarity. I suppose there isn't a need for a mask in permission_lite, since it is presently specific to MAY_EXEC. thanks, -chris _______________________________________________ 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 : Wed May 08 2002 - 09:02:50 PDT