Re: [RFC][Patch 2/6] integrity: fs hook placement

[Chris Wright]

* Serge E. Hallyn (serue@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Are you objecting only to the duplication at the callsites, so that an
> fsnotify-type of consolidation of security and integrity hooks would be
> ok?  Or are you complaining that the security_inode_setxattr and
> integrity_inode_setxattr hooks are too similar anyway, and integrity
> modules should just use some lsm hooks for anything which will be
> authoritative?

It's duplication of callsites with many identical implementations
that's the problem.

> (I could see an argument that integirty subsystem should be purely for
> measuring and hence its hooks should never return a value.  Only hitch
> there is that if integrity subsystem hits ENOMEM it should be able to
> refuse the action...)

Right, that's what I was expecting to see, just the measurement
infrastructure.

thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/