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

From: James Morris (jmorrisat_private)
Date: Sun Dec 01 2002 - 18:00:27 PST

  • Next message: Seth Arnold: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions"

    On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Greg KH wrote:
    
    > > 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.
    > 
    > But with this patch, if the module author hasn't specified a hook, they
    > get the "dummy" ones.  So the structure should always be full of
    > pointers, making the VERIFY_STRUCT macro pointless.
    
    
    Yes, but defaulting unspecified hooks to dummy operations could be
    dangerous.  A module might appear to compile and run perfectly well, but 
    be missing some important new hook.
    
    
    
    - James
    -- 
    James Morris
    <jmorrisat_private>
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 18:01:40 PST