Re: [PATCH 2/5] Rework stubs in security.h

2005-08-26 Thread Tony Jones
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 02:00:56PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > That makes capability part of the core kernel again, just like DAC, > which means that you can never override a capability denial in your > module. We sometimes want to override the capability implementation, > not just apply fu

Re: [PATCH 2/5] Rework stubs in security.h

2005-08-26 Thread Chris Wright
* Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > That one isn't so much an issue as the xattr ones and vm_enough_memory > case. But more generally, if you think about moving toward a place > where one can grant privileges to processes based solely on their > role/domain, you'll need the same ability

Re: [PATCH 2/5] Rework stubs in security.h

2005-08-26 Thread Tony Jones
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:59:52AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > * Tony Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > The discussion about composing with commoncap made me think about whether > > this is the best way to do this. It seems that we're heading towards a > > requirement that every module intern

Re: [PATCH 2/5] Rework stubs in security.h

2005-08-26 Thread Stephen Smalley
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 10:31 -0700, Tony Jones wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:20:30PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > > > static inline int security_ptrace (struct task_struct * parent, struct > > task_struct * child) > > { > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY > > return security_ops->ptrace (paren

Re: [PATCH 2/5] Rework stubs in security.h

2005-08-26 Thread Chris Wright
* Tony Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The discussion about composing with commoncap made me think about whether > this is the best way to do this. It seems that we're heading towards a > requirement that every module internally compose with commoncap. Not a requirement, it's a choice ATM.

Re: [PATCH 2/5] Rework stubs in security.h

2005-08-26 Thread Tony Jones
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:20:30PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > static inline int security_ptrace (struct task_struct * parent, struct > task_struct * child) > { > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY > return security_ops->ptrace (parent, child); > +#else > + return cap_ptrace (parent, child); >

[PATCH 2/5] Rework stubs in security.h

2005-08-24 Thread Chris Wright
Collapse security stubs so that the def'n is done in one spot with ifdef in function body rather than two separately defined functions. Patch from Kurt Garloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and slightly altered by me to make all ifdef sites consistent and move the prototype decl's to a sane spot. Signed-o