In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:48:04PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> > Why? Are you concerned that the security policy may change after a module
> > is loaded?
>
> No, it's a matter of proper layering. We generally don't want modules
> like st
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:48:04PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> Why? Are you concerned that the security policy may change after a module
> is loaded?
No, it's a matter of proper layering. We generally don't want modules
like stackabke filesystems to call directly into methods but rather use
prope
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:51:14PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > ERROR: "security_inode_permission" [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined!
> > ERROR: "security_file_ioctl" [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko]
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:51:14PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ERROR: "security_inode_permission" [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: "security_file_ioctl" [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined!
>
> Need these back.
These should never used by module
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ERROR: "security_inode_permission" [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined!
ERROR: "security_file_ioctl" [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined!
Need these back.
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Chris Wright <[EMA
