From: Olaf Dietsche <olaf.dietsche#list.linux-kernel@t-online.de>
To: James Morris <jmorris@intercode.com.au>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, <linux-security-module@wirex.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LSM fix for stupid "empty" functions
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 19:46:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <873cph37dh.fsf@goat.bogus.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Mutt.LNX.4.44.0212020441560.19785-100000@blackbird.intercode.com.au
James Morris <jmorris@intercode.com.au> writes:
> 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.
VERIFY_STRUCT() now verifies, wether security_fixup_ops() has done its
job. So it does no harm, but it is useless, nevertheless.
If you want to check, wether a module has been recompiled, you should
add a length/sizeof(struct security_operations) parameter.
Regards, Olaf.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-12-01 18:38 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 [this message]
2002-12-01 20:05 ` Greg KH
2002-12-01 19:25 ` Greg KH
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=873cph37dh.fsf@goat.bogus.local \
--to=olaf.dietsche#list.linux-kernel@t-online.de \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=jmorris@intercode.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@wirex.com \
/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.