Re: [PATCH v13 2/4] fs: add LSM-supporting anon-inode interface
From: dancol <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-07 03:17:03
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-security-module, lkml, selinux
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.