This patch series addresses two concerns. Currently when a developer
wishes to obtain a security blob from the LSM he/she has to guess at the
length of the blob being returned. We modify security_inode_getsecurity
to return an appropriately sized buffer populated with the security
information and
the value from
the LSM directly. If it fails to obtain the value because there is no module
present or the module does not support the operation it will fall back to using
the inode getxattr operation. In the event that both are inaccessible it
returns EOPNOTSUPP.
Signed-off-by: David P. Quigley [EMAIL
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 08:14 +1000, James Morris wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
It wouldn't be much effort to rebase this patch against Linus's latest
tree. I am assuming that the static lsm patch is in there based on the
recent discussion on LKML?
Oh, sorry for
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 19:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This patch modifies the interface to inode_getsecurity to have the
function return a buffer containing the security blob and its length via
parameters instead of relying
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 10:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 19:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
static int task_alloc_security(struct task_struct *task)
@@ -2423,14
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:13 -0400, David P. Quigley wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 10:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 19:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
static int
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 10:07 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 19:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This patch modifies the interface to inode_getsecurity to have
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 10:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 19:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
static int task_alloc_security(struct task_struct *task)
@@ -2423,14
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:36 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 10:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 19:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting David P
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 21:04 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Oct 24 2007 19:59, Simon Arlott wrote:
On 24/10/07 19:51, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Oct 24 2007 19:11, Simon Arlott wrote:
* (I've got a list of access rules which are scanned in order until one of
them matches, and an array of
Any comments on these patches? I know Casey voiced some concerns about
them the first time I posted them but I believe I have adequately
addressed them.
Dave
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 15:06 -0400, David P. Quigley wrote:
This patch series addresses two concerns. Currently when a developer
wishes
11 matches
Mail list logo
