Re: handling exec_permission_lite

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

chrisat_private

* 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