From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Add security check before flushing SAD/SPD Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:56:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <200703221835.l2MIZdDw007850@faith.austin.ibm.com> <20070322.120139.74735307.davem@davemloft.net> <1174598630.3085.285.camel@faith.austin.ibm.com> <1174607451.3085.290.camel@faith.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: David Miller , selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, netdev@vger.kernel.org, vyekkirala@trustedcs.com To: Joy Latten Return-path: Received: from mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.5]:59273 "EHLO mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934220AbXCWA4x (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:56:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1174607451.3085.290.camel@faith.austin.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Joy Latten wrote: > > Perhaps a better semantic would be to fail the entire flush operation if > > one of the security checks failed. e.g. loop through for permissions > > first, then if all ok, loop through for deletion. > > > Ok, will code this up and test it if there are no objections. I'd suggest making the permission loop a noop if CONFIG_SECURITY=n, via a static inline function. -- James Morris