All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@intercode.com.au>
Cc: Olaf Dietsche <olaf.dietsche#list.linux-kernel@t-online.de>,
	linux-security-module@wirex.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 11:25:32 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021201192532.GA9278@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Mutt.LNX.4.44.0212020441560.19785-100000@blackbird.intercode.com.au>

On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:46:43AM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 05:59:10PM +0100, Olaf Dietsche wrote:
> > > >  	VERIFY_STRUCT(struct security_operations, ops, err);
> > > 
> > > This shouldn't be necessary anymore.
> > 
> > Good point, I'll remove it.  It was a hack anyway :)
> > 
> 
> I think we still want to make sure that the module author has explicitly
> accounted for all of the hooks, in case new hooks are added.

But with this patch, if the module author hasn't specified a hook, they
get the "dummy" ones.  So the structure should always be full of
pointers, making the VERIFY_STRUCT macro pointless.

thanks,

greg k-h

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-12-01 18:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-12-01  8:30 [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions Greg KH
2002-12-01  8:17 ` Crispin Cowan
2002-12-01 17:49   ` Greg KH
2002-12-01 16:59 ` Olaf Dietsche
2002-12-01 18:12   ` Greg KH
2002-12-01 17:21     ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-01 18:26       ` Greg KH
2002-12-03  2:37         ` Dragan Stancevic
2002-12-03 16:01           ` Greg KH
2002-12-03 15:14             ` Dragan Stancevic
2002-12-01 17:46     ` James Morris
2002-12-01 18:46       ` Olaf Dietsche
2002-12-01 20:05         ` Greg KH
2002-12-01 19:25       ` Greg KH [this message]
2002-12-02  2:00         ` James Morris
2002-12-02  6:57           ` Greg KH
2002-12-03  8:04             ` James Morris
2002-12-04  0:13 ` [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions - take 2 Greg KH
2002-12-04  8:14   ` Chris Wright
2002-12-04 23:00     ` Greg KH
2002-12-04 23:44       ` Chris Wright
2002-12-05  0:09   ` James Morris
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-12-01 18:57 [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions Adam J. Richter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20021201192532.GA9278@kroah.com \
    --to=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=jmorris@intercode.com.au \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@wirex.com \
    --cc=olaf.dietsche#list.linux-kernel@t-online.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.