Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 5/12] lsm stacking v0.2: actual stacker module | From | Stephen Smalley <> | Date | Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:40:28 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 14:50 -0500, serue@us.ibm.com wrote: > Adds the actual stacker LSM. <snip> > +static int stacker_inode_getsecurity(struct inode *inode, const char *name, void *buffer, size_t size) > +{ > + RETURN_ERROR_IF_ANY_ERROR(inode_getsecurity,inode_getsecurity(inode,name,buffer,size)); > +} > + > +static int stacker_inode_setsecurity(struct inode *inode, const char *name, const void *value, size_t size, int flags) > +{ > + RETURN_ERROR_IF_ANY_ERROR(inode_setsecurity,inode_setsecurity(inode,name,value,size,flags)); > +} > + > +static int stacker_inode_listsecurity(struct inode *inode, char *buffer, size_t buffer_size) > +{ > + RETURN_ERROR_IF_ANY_ERROR(inode_listsecurity,inode_listsecurity(inode,buffer, buffer_size)); > +}
These hooks pose a similar problem for stacking as with the [gs]etprocattr hooks, although [gs]etsecurity have the benefit of already taking a distinguishing name suffix (the part after the security. prefix). Note also that inode_getsecurity returns the number of bytes used/required on success.
The proposed inode_init_security hook will likewise have an issue for stacking.
-- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency
- 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/
| |