* Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote: > > 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). Yeah, I got the impression the new permission_lite inode operation suggestion fell on deaf ears, but I left the mask in the LSM interface. 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 - 10:15:29 PDT