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

From: Seth Arnold (sarnoldat_private)
Date: Sun Dec 01 2002 - 19:12:09 PST

  • Next message: Greg KH: "Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions"

    On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00:27PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
    > 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.
    
    A -DDEBUG version that printk()s which hooks it is defaulting to the
    dummy ops might be the easiest way to get this result, short of checking
    the list of operations when recompiling a module...
    
    -- 
    "A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb."
    -- US Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 - 19:13:26 PST