linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained [try #2]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc:	torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org, steved@...hat.com,
	trond.myklebust@....uio.no, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cachefs@...hat.com, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be
 obtained [try #2]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, David Howells wrote:

> James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> 
> > > +	u32 (*inode_get_secid)(struct inode *inode);
> > 
> > To maintain API consistency, please return an int which only acts as an 
> > error code, and returning the secid via a *u32 function parameter.
> 
> Does that apply to *all* the functions, irrespective of whether or not they
> return an error?

LSM is theoretically an API, so we generally don't know if a security 
module will return an error or not.

If they were simply calls directly into SElinux, where we could always 
know the semantics, then that would be a different story.



- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/