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.