linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/28] Patches to pass vfsmount to LSM inode security hooks

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]

Message-ID: <96672.70902.qm@web36613.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:23:24 -0800 (PST)
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Cc:	Tony Jones <tonyj@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, agruen@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/28] Patches to pass vfsmount to LSM inode security hooks


--- Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org> wrote:


> It's not really worth describing, since it's not
> acceptable in upstream.
> But it basically cycles vfsmnts and looks for
> matches to guess which
> part of the tree the dentry is in.

Yick. Indeed, that would be bad.

> This kind of change (or perhaps
> straight to struct path) is definitely
> needed from AA.

It is certainly tempting to suggest that the
path struct scheme would be better. The only
argument against it that I see is the kind
of changes you'd have to make to existing code.
It's not even a matter of having to make
changes, just which changes you make.


Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
-
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/