Re: A basic question about the security_* hooks

[Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 23:50 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:

<snip>

> Well, taking a step back - what exactly is the motivation for making this
> an LSM?  Is it just to re-use the callsites?  Or to provide a way to turn
> off the functionality?  I ask bc the API is in the prctl code, so the LSM
> is conceptually always there, which is different from other LSMs.
> 
> So if you (or your audience) really want this to be an LSM, then you should
> probably put your prctl code in a security_task_prctl() hook.  Otherwise,
> perhaps we should just explicitly call your hooks in wrappers - or whatever was
> finally decided should be done with the security/integrity/ima hooks.
> 
> -serge

Any place that a security hook and the IMA call co-existed, the IMA call
was moved to the security_ hook (security/security.c).

Mimi