Re: handling exec_permission_lite

From: Chris Wright (chrisat_private)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 09:00:12 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: handling exec_permission_lite"

    * 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