[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-security-module
Subject:    Re: handling exec_permission_lite
From:       Chris Wright <chris () wirex ! com>
Date:       2002-05-08 17:13:17
[Download RAW message or body]

* Stephen Smalley (sds@tislabs.com) wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 8 May 2002, Chris Wright wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for looking at it and putting another idea on the table.  I guess
> > we'll stick with the extra hook for clarity.  I suppose there isn't a need
> > for a mask in permission_lite, since it is presently specific to MAY_EXEC.
> 
> I'd suggest keeping the mask parameter to permission_lite for generality.
> The lkml discussions seemed to suggest that a permission_lite (or
> permission_light) inode operation might be defined.  If so, I would be
> surprised if they would limit it only to MAY_EXEC (but what do I know).

Yeah, I got the impression the new permission_lite inode operation
suggestion fell on deaf ears, but I left the mask in the LSM interface.

thanks,
-chris
_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-module@wirex.com
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]