Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-11-01 Thread James Morris
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, David P. Quigley wrote: 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 the calling function to give it an appropriately sized buffer. Security

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-11-01 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
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 the calling function to give it an appropriately sized buffer. Security

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-31 Thread David P. Quigley
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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-26 Thread David P. Quigley
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 the

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-26 Thread Stephen Smalley
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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-26 Thread David P. Quigley
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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-26 Thread David P. Quigley
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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-26 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
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 +2397,22 @@ static const char

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-26 Thread David P. Quigley
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 the

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-26 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([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. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): static int

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-26 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
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. Quigley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): static int

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-26 Thread David P. Quigley
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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-26 Thread David P. Quigley
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.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-25 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
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 the calling function to give it an appropriately sized buffer.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer

2007-10-23 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, David P. Quigley wrote: +static inline int security_inode_getsecurity(const struct inode *inode, + const char *name, + void **buffer) It's better to keep function declarations on one