lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC v3 02/10] Revert "lsm: Remove the socket_post_accept() hook"
From
Date
Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:28:24 PM Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:24:15 AM Samir Bellabes wrote:
> > > > snet needs to reintroduce this hook, as it was designed to be: a hook
> > > > for updating security informations on objects.
> > >
> > > Looking at this and 5/10 again, it seems that you should be able to do
> > > what you need with the sock_graft() hook. Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > My apologies if we've already discussed this approach previously ...
> >
> > Second problem is that genlmsg_unicast() might return -EAGAIN because we
> > can't sleep inside write_lock_bh()/write_unlock_bh().
>
> Ah yes, the real problem. I forgot that snet relied on a user space tool. I
> tend to agree with others who have suggested this is not the right approach,
> but I understand why you want the post_accept() hook; thanks for reminding me.
>
However, it sounds that Samir says genlmsg_unicast() failure is not fatal.

Samir Bellabes wrote:
> using snet_do_send_event() means that system is sending data to
> userspace. the system is not waiting for a verdict from userspace.
>
> If error occurs, we actually loose the information data.
> I may be able to write a solution which try to send the data again, but
> we need a exit solution for this loop (a number of try ?).

If genlmsg_unicast() failure is not fatal, snet doesn't need the
socket_post_accept hook. Samir, is genlmsg_unicast() failure fatal for snet?
(Although, I'd like to ask for revival of the hook for TOMOYO anyway.)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-05 23:47    [W:0.141 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site