Re: [PATCH v13 2/4] fs: add LSM-supporting anon-inode interface

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2021-01-06 21:09, Paul Moore wrote:
Is it necessary to pass both the context_inode pointer and the secure
boolean?  It seems like if context_inode is non-NULL then one could
assume that a secure anonymous inode was requested; is there ever
going to be a case where this is not true?

The converse isn't true though: it makes sense to ask for a secure inode with a NULL context inode.




[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux