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

2007-07-24 Thread Joshua Brindle
Casey Schaufler wrote: +static int smack_shm_associate(struct shmid_kernel *shp, int shmflg) +{ + smack_t *ssp = smack_of_shm(shp); + int rc; + + if (ssp == NULL) + return 0; + + rc = smk_curacc(ssp, MAY_READWRITE); + return rc; +} No read-only

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

2007-07-24 Thread Casey Schaufler
--- Joshua Brindle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Casey Schaufler wrote: +static int smack_shm_associate(struct shmid_kernel *shp, int shmflg) +{ + smack_t *ssp = smack_of_shm(shp); + int rc; + + if (ssp == NULL) + return 0; + + rc = smk_curacc(ssp, MAY_READWRITE); +

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] 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