linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] Security: Add hook to get full maclabel xattr name

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:42:47 -0500
From:	Dave Quigley <dpquigl@...ho.nsa.gov>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
	viro@....linux.org.uk, trond.myklebust@....uio.no,
	bfields@...ldses.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] Security: Add hook to get full maclabel xattr
	name


On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 20:00 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 07:32:47PM -0500, Dave Quigley wrote:
> > I can always go with the original hook name of get_security_xattr_name
> > which turns into a security_get_security_xattr_name call which seems a
> > bit ludicrous. The only other complaint that I saw from Casey besides
> > the name of the function was that there could be more than one xattr. If
> > we want to address that then I need another hook that says give me all
> > data that the LSM deems important for this file. Which is essentially
> > the same thing as taking each of the xattr names that the module will
> > provide, grabbing each of them in turn, and concatenating them together.
> > For SELinux this is no different than getsecurity with the selinux
> > suffix. The same goes for SMACK.
> 
> What about Casey's suggestion of get_security_blob?  For any reasonable
> module that just has a single xattr it's trivial and for those that
> have multiple or a different storage model it might get complicated
> but that's not our problem for now.

If this is the method we are going to use then we need a corresponding
set_security_blob as well. This seems like a paradigm shift for
accessing security information in the kernel. I said to Casey in the
beginning that I'd be willing to revisit it but that neither he or I
alone could make the decision. Unless I misunderstood the original
mandate for security information and that it only applies to how user
space accesses it.

Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/