On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 05:48:49PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > capable is needed to be checked, as we are not modifying the existing
> > permission logic.
>
> I odn't think it makes sense to have two security checks that both
> end up in the LSM code after each other..
For cases like the module_* hooks, and the other examples you pointed
out, I agree.
For other cases, capable() is just not fine grained enough to actually
know what is going on (like CAP_SYS_ADMIN). In those cases you need an
extra hook to determine where in the kernel you are.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:00:32 EST