[PATCH v13 2/4] fs: add LSM-supporting anon-inode interface

dancol dancol at dancol.org
Thu Jan 7 02:42:20 UTC 2021

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.

More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list