On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 07:48 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 15:51 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> > @@ -3620,13 +3523,6 @@ static int selinux_netlink_send(struct s
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > -static int selinux_netlink_recv(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > -{
> > - if (!cap_raised(NETLINK_CB(skb).eff_cap, CAP_NET_ADMIN))
> > - return -EPERM;
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -
>
> Hmm...is removing this entirely safe? Given that dummy is being
> removed, and null ops are no longer being populated, don't we have to
> ensure that we define a SELinux hook function for every cap_ function
> and explicitly call that function? Likewise, don't we now have to add a
> settime hook to SELinux to preserve behavior? Previously, it was
> defaulting to the dummy hook, which conveniently called capable(), so it
> ended up working regardless of whether SELinux was stacked with dummy or
> capability.
Ah, never mind - I forgot that you are falling back to the cap_
functions in your static inlines if the operation is null. So you could
also remove selinux_capset_set and selinux_task_post_setuid.
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 26 2005 - 04:58:32 PDT