Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak

[James Morris]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:

> 
> Ok, so instead of having a full fledge single security layer, only add
> the security layer for those places where both the LSM hooks and IMA
> co-exist: security_file_mmap, security_bprm_check, security_inode_alloc,
> security_inode_free, and security_file_free. As the LSM hooks are called
> 'security_XXXX', the call would look something like:
> 
> security_all_inode_free() {
>         ima_inode_free()
>         security_inode_free()
> }

Yes, it only needs to be a wrapper.  The above is ugly, how about:

security_inode_free()
{
	ima_inode_free();
	lsm_inode_free();
}

I think we may have come full circle on the naming of the LSM hook, but 
'security_*' was never great given that it's only supposed to be covering 
access control.

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/