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.