| To: | Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add audit uid to netlink credentials |
| From: | Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 10 Feb 2005 07:51:23 -0500 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Audit Discussion <linux-audit@xxxxxxxxxx>, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1108038968.22172.26.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | National Security Agency |
| References: | <20050204165840.GA2320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1107958621.19262.524.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1107960659.4837.9.camel@serge> <1107973381.17568.97.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050209103747.Y24171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1107974448.17568.108.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050209153816.B24171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050209171115.G24171@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1108038968.22172.26.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 07:36, Stephen Smalley wrote: > Why not just call the security handler from the security_netlink_send() > function, which is already called by netlink_sendmsg()? Ok, I can see why you wouldn't want to do that, but why not just call the handler immediately after security_netlink_send() then in netlink_sendmsg()? What is the advantage of deferring to netlink_sendskb (and some other location for broadcasts)? -- Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> National Security Agency |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Add audit uid to netlink credentials, David Woodhouse |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [PATCH] Add audit uid to netlink credentials, Chad Hanson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Add audit uid to netlink credentials, Stephen Smalley |
| Next by Thread: | RE: [PATCH] Add audit uid to netlink credentials, Chad Hanson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |