Michael Halcrow wrote: >Then I would have a global variable cap_action, which could be >optionally set before the if( !capable(...) ) statement in the >kernel. Of course, we may need to include locking protection for this >sort of thing, but I would have to look a little closer to know for >sure (an optional third argument to capable() might be in order). I'm scared by global variables. (Multithreading, preemption, re-entrant code -- hello, race conditions.) Maybe it's ok, but a third argument does seem safer, as you suggest. _______________________________________________ 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 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 21:22:10 PDT