Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 22:50:09 +0300
From: Igor Stoppa <>
To: Casey Schaufler <>,
        Christoph Hellwig
        Tetsuo Handa <>
CC: <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
 KH" <>,
        James Morris <>,
        Kees Cook <>, Paul Moore <>,
        "Stephen Smalley" <>
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.