Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:24:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:24:00 -0400 Received: from cerebus.wirex.com ([65.102.14.138]:59890 "EHLO figure1.int.wirex.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 04:23:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:22:00 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: James Morris Cc: Greg KH , Olaf Dietsche , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@wirex.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] accessfs v0.6 ported to 2.5.35-lsm1 - 1/2 Message-ID: <20020930012200.G12641@figure1.int.wirex.com> Mail-Followup-To: James Morris , Greg KH , Olaf Dietsche , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@wirex.com References: <20020927214642.GS12909@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jmorris@intercode.com.au on Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 10:56:33PM +1000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 668 Lines: 18 * James Morris (jmorris@intercode.com.au) wrote: > > > > As for the ip_prot_sock hook in general, does it look ok to the other > > developers? > > This hook is not necessary: any related access control decision can be > made via the more generic and flexible socket_bind() hook (like SELinux). Yes, I had the same impression. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/