Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

2007-07-24 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:37:01 -0400 (EDT) James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Convert LSM into a static interface allmodconfig broke security/built-in.o: In function `rootplug_bprm_check_security': security/root_plug.c:64: undefined reference to `usb_find_device' security/root_plug.c:70: un

Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

2007-07-24 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:02:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:37:01 -0400 (EDT) James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Convert LSM into a static interface > > allmodconfig broke > > security/built-in.o: In function `rootplug_bprm_check_security': > security/ro

Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

2007-07-24 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:53:58 -0700 Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:02:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:37:01 -0400 (EDT) James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Convert LSM into a static interface > > > > allmodconfig brok

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Version5 - Simplified mandatory access control kernel implementation

2007-07-24 Thread Joshua Brindle
Casey Schaufler wrote: +static int smack_shm_associate(struct shmid_kernel *shp, int shmflg) +{ + smack_t *ssp = smack_of_shm(shp); + int rc; + + if (ssp == NULL) + return 0; + + rc = smk_curacc(ssp, MAY_READWRITE); + return rc; +} No read-only

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Version5 - Simplified mandatory access control kernel implementation

2007-07-24 Thread Casey Schaufler
--- Joshua Brindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Casey Schaufler wrote: > >>> +static int smack_shm_associate(struct shmid_kernel *shp, int shmflg) > >>> +{ > >>> + smack_t *ssp = smack_of_shm(shp); > >>> + int rc; > >>> + > >>> + if (ssp == NULL) > >>> + return 0; > >>> + > >>> + rc = smk

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Version4 - Simplified mandatory access control kernel implementation

2007-07-24 Thread Casey Schaufler
--- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Seth Arnold wrote: > > > Are GFP_KERNEL allocations kosher inside a spinlock? > > No, and building and testing with all of the lock debugging enabled should > show up many issues such as this. I will do this before the next pa

Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

2007-07-24 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:58:46AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:53:58 -0700 Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:02:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:37:01 -0400 (EDT) James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote:

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Version6 - Simplified mandatory access control kernel implementation

2007-07-24 Thread James Morris
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Casey Schaufler wrote: > Thank you again for the help so far. Please include the patch inline so it can be replied to. In +static ssize_t smk_write_cipso(struct file *file, const char __user *buf, + size_t count, loff_t *ppos) + m