Re: [PATCH] LSM file locking patch is bogus

Previous message: Westerman, Mark: "RE: Secure Computing statement of assurance"
In reply to: Matthew Wilcox: "[PATCH] LSM file locking patch is bogus"
Next in thread: Chris Wright: "Re: [PATCH] LSM file locking patch is bogus"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

gregat_private

On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 11:31:49PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
>  - Remove third argument from file_lock security op.  Whether the lock is
>    blocking or not cannot make any difference to a security module!
>  - Fix the call in sys_flock to pass the translated lock command, not the
>    original.
>  - Add a call in fcntl_setlease.  If they're going to know about two types
>    of lock, let's tell them about the third too.

Thanks a lot for the patch, looks like Linus already took it.

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module