Re: [RFC] LSM changes for 2.5.38

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 05:48:49PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > capable is needed to be checked, as we are not modifying the existing
> > permission logic.
> 
> I odn't think it makes sense to have two security checks that both
> end up in the LSM code after each other..

For cases like the module_* hooks, and the other examples you pointed
out, I agree.

For other cases, capable() is just not fine grained enough to actually
know what is going on (like CAP_SYS_ADMIN).  In those cases you need an
extra hook to determine where in the kernel you are.

thanks,

greg k-h