linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] audit: replace getname()/putname() hacks with reference counters

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:45:06 -0500
From:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To:	Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-audit@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] audit: replace getname()/putname() hacks with reference counters

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 04:37:17 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/01/08, Paul Moore wrote:
> > In order to ensure that filenames are not released before the audit
> > subsystem is done with the strings there are a number of hacks built
> > into the fs and audit subsystems around getname() and putname().  To
> > say these hacks are "ugly" would be kind.
> > 
> > This patch removes the filename hackery in favor of a more
> > conventional reference count based approach.  The diffstat below tells
> > most of the story; lots of audit/fs specific code is replaced with a
> > traditional reference count based approach that is easily understood,
> > even by those not familiar with the audit and/or fs subsystems.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
> 
> The only nit I've got is "refcnt" enlarges "struct filename" where I
> would have used a bitfield with "separate".
> 
> Otherwise, this looks like an improvement.  Thanks.

I agree that it is unfortunate that struct filename increases, but it seemed 
liked a valid tradeoff considering that we got to remove the 
getname()/putname() hacks in favor of a more traditional approach.

As far the int versus bitfield, I suppose I favor the int in this particular 
case, but if the fs folks want a bitfield I can do that.

> Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>

Thanks for taking the time to review the patchset.

-- 
paul moore
security @ redhat

--
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/