[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFqZXNtFfZ3FEoVAfM5r_a-mTqphz7qw=F3_Em87dRz6ca4EaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 10:30:24 +0100
From: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] lsm: fix default return values for some hooks
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 4:12 AM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 8:32 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Some of the default return values listed in <linux/lsm_hook_defs.h>
> > don't match the actual no-op value and can be trivially fixed.
> >
> > Ondrej Mosnacek (2):
> > lsm: fix default return value for vm_enough_memory
> > lsm: fix default return value for inode_getsecctx
> >
> > include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> These both look like reasonable -stable candidates to me, what do you think?
Yes, that would be my assessment as well.
--
Ondrej Mosnacek
Senior Software Engineer, Linux Security - SELinux kernel
Red Hat, Inc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists