[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201705230543.FDH39582.LFQHJOtFOOFSMV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 05:43:16 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: casey@...aufler-ca.com, igor.stoppa@...wei.com, hch@...radead.org
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
keescook@...omium.org, paul@...l-moore.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Make security_hook_heads a local variable.
Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 5/22/2017 12:50 PM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > On 22/05/17 18:09, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> On 5/22/2017 7:03 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >>> But even with those we can still chain
> >>> them together with a list with external linkage.
> >> I gave up that approach in 2012. Too many unnecessary calls to
> >> null functions, and massive function vectors with a tiny number
> >> of non-null entries. From a data structure standpoint, it was
> >> just wrong. The list scheme is exactly right for the task at
> >> hand.
> > I understand this as a green light, for me to continue with the plan of
> > using LSM Hooks as example for making dynamically allocated data become
> > read-only, using also Tetsuo's patch (thanks, btw).
>
> I still don't like the assumption that a structure of
> N elements can be assumed to be the same as an array
> of N elements.
I think we can use "enum" and call via index numbers while preserving
current "union" for type checking purpose.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
