On 5/22/2017 12:50 PM, Igor Stoppa wrote: > On 22/05/17 18:09, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> On 5/22/2017 7:03 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > [...] > >>> But even with those we can still chain >>> them together with a list with external linkage. >> I gave up that approach in 2012. Too many unnecessary calls to >> null functions, and massive function vectors with a tiny number >> of non-null entries. From a data structure standpoint, it was >> just wrong. The list scheme is exactly right for the task at >> hand. > I understand this as a green light, for me to continue with the plan of > using LSM Hooks as example for making dynamically allocated data become > read-only, using also Tetsuo's patch (thanks, btw). I still don't like the assumption that a structure of N elements can be assumed to be the same as an array of N elements. Putting on my hardening hat, however, I like the smalloc() solution to keeping the hook lists safe, so I am willing to swallow the objection to using offsets to address the existing exposure. > > Is that correct? > > --- > thanks, igor > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
