Re: [RFC][PATCH] Version4 - Simplified mandatory access control kernel implementation

2007-07-23 Thread Seth Arnold
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 04:22:52PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: +int smk_access(smack_t *sub_label, smack_t *obj_label, int requested) +{ + /* + * Hardcoded comparisons. + * + * A star subject can't access any object. + * A dash subject can't access any object. +

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Version5 - Simplified mandatory access control kernel implementation

2007-07-23 Thread Stephen Smalley
snip + +/* + * I hope these are the hokeyist lines of code in the module. Casey. + */ +#define DEVPTS_SUPER_MAGIC 0x1cd1 +#define SOCKFS_MAGIC 0x534F434B +#define PIPEFS_MAGIC 0x50495045 +#define TMPFS_MAGIC0x01021994 snip + /* +* This is pretty

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Version4 - Simplified mandatory access control kernel implementation

2007-07-23 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Seth Arnold wrote: Are GFP_KERNEL allocations kosher inside a spinlock? No, and building and testing with all of the lock debugging enabled should show up many issues such as this. -- James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Version5 - Simplified mandatory access control kernel implementation

2007-07-23 Thread Seth Arnold
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 09:44:49PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: I appears that everyone else took the weekend to read Deathly Hallows* as it's been pretty quiet here. Well, my wife took first dibs on our copy so I did some polishing on smack instead. Since no one complained about the size

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Version5 - Simplified mandatory access control kernel implementation

2007-07-23 Thread Casey Schaufler
--- Seth Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 09:44:49PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: I appears that everyone else took the weekend to read Deathly Hallows* as it's been pretty quiet here. Well, my wife took first dibs on our copy so I did some polishing on smack