Re: handling exec_permission_lite

From: Chris Wright (chrisat_private)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 10:13:17 PDT

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "[ANNOUNCE] 2002_05_08 patch against 2.5.14"

    * 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