Re: [PATCH] accessfs v0.6 ported to 2.5.35-lsm1 - 1/2

Previous message: Greg KH: "Re: [PATCH] accessfs v0.6 ported to 2.5.35-lsm1 - 1/2"
In reply to: Greg KH: "Re: [PATCH] accessfs v0.6 ported to 2.5.35-lsm1 - 1/2"
Next in thread: James Morris: "Re: [PATCH] accessfs v0.6 ported to 2.5.35-lsm1 - 1/2"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

olaf.dietsche--list.linux-security-moduleat_private

Greg KH <gregat_private> writes:

> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 08:55:52PM +0200, Olaf Dietsche wrote:
>>  
>> +static int cap_ip_prot_sock (int port)
>> +{
>> +	if (port && port < PROT_SOCK && !capable(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE))
>> +		return -EACCES;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>
> Do we really want to force all of the security modules to implement this
> logic (yes, it's the same discussion again...)

I don't understand what you mean. There must be _some_ implementation
for this hook. Of course, everybody's free to do his own.

Regards, Olaf.
_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module