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]

Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:42:26 +0200
From:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
To:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc:	jjohansen@...e.de, 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 Wednesday 27 June 2007 01:46, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> 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".

Yes, the name is pretty arbitrary. vfs_intent is better, even though the 
struct doesn't only include the intent data.

Thanks,
Andreas
-
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/