On 2021-01-06 21:09, Paul Moore wrote:
Is it necessary to pass both the context_inode pointer and the secure
boolean? It seems like if context_inode is non-NULL then one could
assume that a secure anonymous inode was requested; is there ever
going to be a case where this is not true?
The conve
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:44 PM Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:10 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 8:54 PM Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > > From: Daniel Colascione
> > >
> > > This change adds a new function, anon_inode_getfd_secure, that creates
> > > anonymous-node
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:42 PM dancol wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-06 21:09, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Is it necessary to pass both the context_inode pointer and the secure
> > boolean? It seems like if context_inode is non-NULL then one could
> > assume that a secure anonymous inode was requested; is there
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:10 PM Paul Moore wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 8:54 PM Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > From: Daniel Colascione
> >
> > This change adds a new function, anon_inode_getfd_secure, that creates
> > anonymous-node file with individual non-S_PRIVATE inode to which security
> > mo
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 8:54 PM Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> From: Daniel Colascione
>
> This change adds a new function, anon_inode_getfd_secure, that creates
> anonymous-node file with individual non-S_PRIVATE inode to which security
> modules can apply policy. Existing callers continue using the orig
From: Daniel Colascione
This change adds a new function, anon_inode_getfd_secure, that creates
anonymous-node file with individual non-S_PRIVATE inode to which security
modules can apply policy. Existing callers continue using the original
singleton-inode kind of anonymous-inode file. We can tran
6 matches
Mail list logo
