[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: A basic question about the security_* hooks
On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 23:50 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:


> Well, taking a step back - what exactly is the motivation for making this
> an LSM? Is it just to re-use the callsites? Or to provide a way to turn
> off the functionality? I ask bc the API is in the prctl code, so the LSM
> is conceptually always there, which is different from other LSMs.
> So if you (or your audience) really want this to be an LSM, then you should
> probably put your prctl code in a security_task_prctl() hook. Otherwise,
> perhaps we should just explicitly call your hooks in wrappers - or whatever was
> finally decided should be done with the security/integrity/ima hooks.
> -serge

Any place that a security hook and the IMA call co-existed, the IMA call
was moved to the security_ hook (security/security.c).


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-27 01:35    [W:0.104 / U:3.920 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site