Re: [Keyrings] [PATCH] Keys: Add LSM hooks for key management [try #2]

* David Howells ([email protected]) wrote:
> +static inline int security_key_permission(key_ref_t key_ref,
> +					  struct task_struct *context,
> +					  key_perm_t perm)
> +{
> +	return -1;
> +}

No solid reason on that one, might as well be 0 for consistency.

Other than that, looks good.  It's going to conflict with some pending
changes I have, how shall we work that?  I can put all of these in that
queue?

thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] Keys: Possessor permissions should be additive
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH] Keys: Split key permissions checking into a .c file
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH] Keys: Add LSM hooks for key management [try #2]
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFClue] pci_get_device, new driver model
• Next by Date: Re: Why no XML in the Kernel?
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] Keys: Add LSM hooks for key management [try #2]
• Next by thread: Re: [Keyrings] [PATCH] Keys: Add LSM hooks for key management [try #2]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]