On Sat, 27 May 2017, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> The LSM initialization routines walk security_hook_heads as an array
> >> of struct list_head instead of via names to avoid a ton o
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Tetsuo Handa
wrote:
> Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >> The LSM initialization routines walk security_hook_heads as an array
>> >> of struct list_
Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> The LSM initialization routines walk security_hook_heads as an array
> >> of struct list_head instead of via names to avoid a ton of needless
> >> source
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> The LSM initialization routines walk security_hook_heads as an array
>> of struct list_head instead of via names to avoid a ton of needless
>> source. Whitelist this to avoid t
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 01:17:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> The LSM initialization routines walk security_hook_heads as an array
> of struct list_head instead of via names to avoid a ton of needless
> source. Whitelist this to avoid the false positive warning from the
> plugin:
I think this crap
The LSM initialization routines walk security_hook_heads as an array
of struct list_head instead of via names to avoid a ton of needless
source. Whitelist this to avoid the false positive warning from the
plugin:
security/security.c: In function ‘security_init’:
security/security.c:59:20: note: fo
6 matches
Mail list logo