On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:00:27PM +1100, James Morris wrote: > 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. One could argue that a "important new hook" would provide a sane dummy operation, or that if the module doesn't need it, why would it want to provide it? :) Anyway, there's no way to resolve both this percieved problem, and the "smaller and easier" patch that I proposed, right? Unless we want to export all dummy operation functions for all modules to use? I could do that, but it's pretty messy... thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ 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 - 21:58:45 PST