Re: handling exec_permission_lite

From: Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 09:14:12 PDT

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "Re: handling exec_permission_lite"

    On Wed, 8 May 2002, Chris Wright wrote:
    
    > 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.
    
    I'd suggest keeping the mask parameter to permission_lite for generality.
    The lkml discussions seemed to suggest that a permission_lite (or
    permission_light) inode operation might be defined.  If so, I would be
    surprised if they would limit it only to MAY_EXEC (but what do I know).
    
    --
    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 : Wed May 08 2002 - 09:15:25 PDT