Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 09:38:13 +0900 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> To: casey@...aufler-ca.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, hch@...radead.org, igor.stoppa@...wei.com, james.l.morris@...cle.com, keescook@...omium.org, paul@...l-moore.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head Casey Schaufler wrote: > > But currently, LSM_HOOK_INIT() macro depends on the address of > > security_hook_heads being known at compile time. If we use an enum > > so that LSM_HOOK_INIT() macro does not need to know absolute address of > > security_hook_heads, it will help us to use that allocator for LSM hooks. > > > > As a result of introducing an enum, security_hook_heads becomes a local > > variable, making it easier to allocate security_hook_heads at run time. > > You loose the type checking in security.c. This is the same > objection I had before to this approach. It's why I objected > to 3dfc9b02864b19f4 and why I didn't adopt the array approach > in the first place. If it's so important that randstruct not > complain about the unnatural cast, revert the patch that > introduced it. I see no net benefit in hiding the symbol over > loosing the typing. You trade a list of typed function > pointers for an enumerated list of values. It doesn't even > make the code look smaller! I still cannot understand what you are referring by "type checking". Please explain me what the type checking in security/security.c is.
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.