linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained [try #2]

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: <503721.44439.qm@web36615.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
	akpm@...l.org, steved@...hat.com, trond.myklebust@....uio.no,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
	nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained [try #2]


--- James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, David Howells wrote:
> 
> > James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > David, I've looked at the code and can't see that you need to access the 
> > > label itself outside the LSM.  Could you instead simply pass the inode 
> > > pointer around?
> > 
> > It's not quite that simple.  I need to impose *two* security labels in
> > cachefiles_begin_secure() when I'm about to act on behalf of a process
> that's
> > tried to access a netfs file:
> 
> Ah ok, we had a similar problem with NFS mount options.
> 
> While I'm concerned about encoding SELinux-optimized secid labels into 
> general kernel structures, moving to more generalized pointers introduces 
> lifecycle maintenance issues and complexity which is not needed in the 
> mainline kernel.  i.e. it'll be unused infrastructure maintained by 
> upstream, and used only by out-of-tree modules.
> 
> So, given that the kernel has no stable API, I suggest accepting the u32 
> secid as you propose, and if someone wants to merge a module which also 
> uses these hooks, but is entirely unable to use u32 labels, then they can 
> also justify making the interface more generalized and provide the code 
> for it.

Grumble. Yet another thing to undo in the near future. I still
hope to suggest what I would consider a viable alternative "soon".


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/