Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions

Previous message: Greg KH: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid &quot;empty&quot; functions"
In reply to: Greg KH: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid &quot;empty&quot; functions"
Next in thread: Greg KH: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid &quot;empty&quot; functions"
Reply: Greg KH: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid &quot;empty&quot; functions"
Reply: Olaf Dietsche: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid &quot;empty&quot; functions"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

jmorrisat_private

On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Greg KH wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 05:59:10PM +0100, Olaf Dietsche wrote:
> > >  	VERIFY_STRUCT(struct security_operations, ops, err);
> > 
> > This shouldn't be necessary anymore.
> 
> Good point, I'll remove it.  It was a hack anyway :)
> 

I think we still want to make sure that the module author has explicitly
accounted for all of the hooks, in case new hooks are added.

- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorrisat_private>

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