lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Stacker - single-use static slots
* serue@us.ibm.com (serue@us.ibm.com) wrote:
> > James had suggested to effectively stash the list in the last slot, so
> > there's only the array with one reserved slot.
>
> Oh, I didn't catch that. I like it. Will do.
>
> So you mean 3 slots total including the shared one?

Yeah, i.e. common case is $LSM and capabilities. Stack slot is last
one, and gets put to use only if needed.

> Any comments on the added argument to register_security and
> mod_reg_security to request a static slot?

Why would you not request a static slot?

> + spin_lock(&security_field_spinlock);
> + if (idx && *idx) {
> + int i;
> +
> + *idx = -1;

So, I guess this means you request one, but who knows which one you'll
get?

> + for (i=0; i<CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKER_NUMFIELDS; i++) {
> + if (security_field_owners[i] == NULL) {
> + security_field_owners[i] = ops;
> + *idx = i;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&security_field_spinlock);

> Given the likelyhood of
> capability/cap_stack being registered, it seemed worthwhile not to have
> it waste a spot, but it is an API change...

API change is no big deal. Seems useful to get index value so you can
do optimized retrieve later. But, I don't see it useful to request that
way. Just register, get index, if index == last slot, lookup hits list.

thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-03 21:49    [W:0.117 / U:0.948 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site