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

gregat_private

On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 07:12:09PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> 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...

Good idea, I'll go add that to the macro.

thanks,

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