[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314380186.25778.30.camel@moss-pluto>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:36:26 -0400
From: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...el.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Smack: SMACK_IOCLOADACCESS
On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 14:14 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > good in that it only takes 1 syscall and ours takes 2. Your interface
> > is bad in that it is ioctl and we are told since birth that we must
> > hate them no matter what (not that read/write is really any
> > different). It isn't the same method the only other LSM I know about
> > uses. It can only every return one value (ok, I know ioctl can be
> > made to do anything at all)
>
> I'm all in favour of the use of brains rather than the cult of ioctl
> hating. You can design bad ioctls and good ones. Also ioctl is pretty
> much unique in being bidirectional, it allows a query/respose action
> without having to worry about whether the respose is the one to your
> query or another parallel query.
The transaction ops achieve that property as well - the response is
stored in an open file private buffer and thus can only correspond to a
request written to that same open file instance.
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
--
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