Matt Piotrowski wrote: > On Thursday 18 July 2002 06:39 pm, Chris Wright wrote: > > >>* David Wheeler (dwheelerat_private) wrote: > > >>>It's not clear to me that a multiplexor could really >>>"account for it properly", since it doesn't have the >>>information it needs to detect this problem. Actually, >> >>It's simple. Keep a stack of security ptrs. Swap out for the module >>specific ptr before you ask the module's opinion and iterate through >>the module stack. > > > Hmmm, seems like there would be complications. Consider a security module > which, for whatever reason, does something like this: > > current->security->inheritable_trait = > current->p_pptr->security->inheritable_trait; > > The left-hand side would be fine because of the swap, but would the right-hand > side be? That is, would the multiplexor module swap the parent task's > security ptr as well? It seems like a multiplexor module would be very hard > with the current interface because modules are written to access the security > blob directly. > > > Matt > > _______________________________________________ > linux-security-module mailing list > linux-security-moduleat_private > http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module > > How about a scheme where a multiplexor module's version of mod_reg_security() returns a security descriptor (like a file descriptor) that is unique to each subordinate module loaded and is used to access the subordinate module's security blob with object->security[security_descriptor]? Lachlan _______________________________________________ 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 : Thu Jul 18 2002 - 20:16:40 PDT