linux-kernel - Re: [RFD 0/4] AppArmor - Don't pass NULL nameidata to vfs

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: <1182901575.12836.54.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:46:15 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	jjohansen@...e.de
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD 0/4] AppArmor - Don't pass NULL nameidata to
	vfs_create/lookup/permission IOPs

On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 16:15 -0700, jjohansen@...e.de wrote:
> To remove conditionally passing of vfsmounts to the LSM, a nameidata
> struct can be instantiated in the nfsd and mqueue filesystems.  This
> however results in useless information being passed down, as not
> all fields in the nameidata struct will be meaingful.  The nameidata
> struct is split creating struct nameidata2 that contains only the
> fields
> that will carry meaningful information.

I don't object to the concept per se, but could you please give it a
more descriptive name please? "struct vfs_intent" would be a lot more
accurate than "nameidata2".

Trond

-
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/