Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:13:57 +0200 | From | Max Kellermann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] /proc Security Hooks |
| |
On 2007/10/16 21:54, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:38:50 +0200 > Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com> wrote: > > This patch attempts to unify duplicated code found in modules like > > Linux VServer. > > can you please merge this patch only when you also merge the first > user > of it? That's the only way we can keep the LSM hooks sane... is to > see > them in thew conect of a user.
I wrote a module which uses this, but it's non-free and only used on my employer's servers. But I could have a closer look at the Vserver code and try to make it use my patch.
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_PROC > > + if (security_proc_task(task) != 0) > > + continue; > > +#endif > > please don't use an ifdef like this; just make security_proc_task() > be > a define to 0 in the header for that CONFIG_ .. > In addition, why is this a separate config option? LSM should really > only be one big switch... microswitches like this don't make any > sense.
Right, I initially wrote this patch some time ago when linux/security.h didn't have an "#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY". I'll adapt that.
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_PROC > > + if (security_proc_generic(de) != 0) > > + > > goto skip; > > +#endif > > as does this one... but the goto looks horrid to me
I'm all against gotos, but seeing gotos all over the kernel, and my code being in an #ifdef, this one goto looked "normal" to me. You're right, I should change it.
Max - 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/
| |