[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 22:50:09 +0300
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Christoph Hellwig
<hch@...radead.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
CC: <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Greg
KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
"Stephen Smalley" <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Make security_hook_heads a local variable.
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).
Is that correct?
---
thanks, igor
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.
