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  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:   Wed, 06 Jan 2021 21:42:20 -0500
From:   dancol <>
To:     Paul Moore <>
Cc:     Lokesh Gidra <>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <>,
        Alexander Viro <>,
        James Morris <>,
        Stephen Smalley <>,
        Casey Schaufler <>,
        Eric Biggers <>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <>,
        Eric Paris <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <>,
        KP Singh <>,
        David Howells <>,
        Anders Roxell <>,
        Sami Tolvanen <>,
        Matthew Garrett <>,
        Aaron Goidel <>,
        Randy Dunlap <>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <>,
        YueHaibing <>,
        Christian Brauner <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Alexey Budankov <>,
        Adrian Reber <>,
        Aleksa Sarai <>,,,,,,,,,,,
        Andrew Morton <>,,
        Daniel Colascione <>,
        Eric Biggers <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/4] fs: add LSM-supporting anon-inode interface

On 2021-01-06 21:09, Paul Moore wrote:
> Is it necessary to pass both the context_inode pointer and the secure
> boolean?  It seems like if context_inode is non-NULL then one could
> assume that a secure anonymous inode was requested; is there ever
> going to be a case where this is not true?

The converse isn't true though: it makes sense to ask for a secure inode 
with a NULL context inode.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists