| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1224869312.3404.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:28:32 -0400 From: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> To: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, esandeen@...hat.com, tytso@....edu, dwalsh@...hat.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: ext4_has_free_blocks always checks cap_sys_resource and makes SELinux unhappy On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 11:08 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 11:05 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > Do others have thoughts? > > Seems similar to the vm_enough_memory() case, where we likewise > introduced a separate security hook that internally checks without > auditing. > > The OOM killer likewise ought to be using a non-auditing form of > capability checks. So would you suggest a generic non-auditing capability checking mechanism or a specific hook for "things to use" * capable_noaudit(current, cap) * security_capable_noaudit(current, cap) * security_cap_sys_resource(current) Looks like oom also checks CAP_SYS_ADMIN so maybe a generic cap interface would be best. esandeen: I still think it would be a good idea to simplify ext4_claim_free_blocks() and ext4_has_free_blocks() which seems to have a lot of code duplication and both have the unconditional capable calls... -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists