--- Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 11:01:12AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > The problem here (As discussed in private mails) is that the for loop
> > assumes that the beginning of given user-space buffer is the beginning
> > of a rule. This leads to situations
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:07:41PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >> [...] I still think there will always be
> >> a number of external modules that cannot be merged right now or at
> >> all, and deliberately mak
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:15PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Adrian Bunk schrieb:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:09:14AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> [...] Once
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 11:01:12AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> The problem here (As discussed in private mails) is that the for loop
> assumes that the beginning of given user-space buffer is the beginning
> of a rule. This leads to situations where the rule becomes "ecret 20",
> or "cret 20"
> +/**
> + * smk_write_cipso - write() for /smack/cipso
> + * @filp: file pointer, not actually used
> + * @buf: where to get the data from
> + * @count: bytes sent
> + * @ppos: where to start
> + *
> + * Returns number of bytes written or error code, as appropriate
> + */
> +static ssize_t smk_wri
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:37:21AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> before going into the LSM / security side of things, I'd like to get
> the VFS guys to look at your VFS interaction code.
It's been NACKed a few times, and just reposting it won't help.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the l
--- "Ahmed S. Darwish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Casey,
>
> Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This version is again aimed at addressing Al Viro's issues in
> > smackfs. Ahmed Darwish has again contributed in the repair of the
> > locking issues there. The move to 2.6.24 was also an
--- Joshua Brindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > The Smack patch and Paul Moore's netlabel API patch,
> > together for 2.6.24-rc1. Paul's changes are identical
> > to the previous posting, but it's been a while so they're
> > here again.
> >
> > The sole intent of change
Tilman Schmidt wrote about:
> breaking interfaces they rely on for no other "very good
> reason" than to discourage out-of-tree development?
How often did this happen yet?
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== =-=- ==-==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Hi Casey,
Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This version is again aimed at addressing Al Viro's issues in
> smackfs. Ahmed Darwish has again contributed in the repair of the
> locking issues there. The move to 2.6.24 was also an important
> release incentive.
>
My patches mentiond above is not
Adrian Bunk schrieb:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:09:14AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
[...] Once you admit that there is code which, for very good
reasons, won't ever
Hello.
Simon Arlott wrote:
> I currently have an LSM that only handles permissions for socket_bind
> and socket_listen, I load it and then "capability" as secondary on
> boot - but now I can't because the LSM framework is now just the LS
> framework.
I think there are two other problems regarding
Greg KH schrieb:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> [...] I still think there will always be
>> a number of external modules that cannot be merged right now or at
>> all, and deliberately making life difficult for out-of-tree code
>> maintainers in order to coerce
Casey Schaufler wrote:
The Smack patch and Paul Moore's netlabel API patch,
together for 2.6.24-rc1. Paul's changes are identical
to the previous posting, but it's been a while so they're
here again.
The sole intent of change has been to address locking
and/or list processing issues. Please don'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Unfortunately libcap apparently does not set the
> capability_version on the cap_t into a capget(). So
> to support old libcap, if the user calls capget without
> asking for 64bit caps, we assume 32-bit caps. Otherwise
> we g
15 matches
Mail list logo