[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080812192511.GA18034@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:25:11 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, safford@...son.ibm.com,
serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, sailer@...son.ibm.com,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 09:52:13AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> We started out with the integrity_inode_permission() hook call in
> inode_permission(), but because of the removal of the nameidata
> parameter in the last merge, based on discussions
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-security-module&m=121797845308246&w=2,
> the call to integrity_inode_permission() was moved up to the caller,
> where either a file or path are available. Any suggestions?
vfs_permission and file_permission are just small wrappers around
inode_permission. In hindsight they actualyl were a wrong idea and
will probably go away in the not so distant future. Note that there
are various callers of inode_permission that don't have a vfsmount
anywhere near.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists