Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 06:44, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>Chris Wright <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>security_capable() returns 0 if that capability bit is set.
>>That's just bizarre. Is there any logic behind it?
> The LSM access control hooks all return 0 on success (i.e. permission
> granted) and negative error code on failure, like most of the rest of
> the kernel interfaces (e.g. consider permission())
Maybe it should be called "security_incapable() and then the return code can be
treated as a boolean true/false....
-- Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: firstname.lastname@example.org
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:16 EST