[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200708170020.19939.agruen@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:20:19 +0200
From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
To: casey@...aufler-ca.com
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
viro@....linux.org.uk, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Adding a security parameter to VFS functions
On Wednesday 15 August 2007 18:23, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > Hi Linus, Al,
> >
> > Would you object greatly to functions like vfs_mkdir() gaining a security
> > parameter?
>
> Could you describe how this compares to the proposal that the
> AppArmor developers suggested recently? I expect that we can
> reduce the amount of discussion required, and maybe avoid some
> confusion if you could do that.
That's from one of those patches:
-int vfs_mkdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int mode)
+int vfs_mkdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, struct vfsmount *mnt,
+ int mode)
We need the vfsmount in the LSM hooks in addition to the dentry in order to
figure out where in the filesystem namespace we are. The various vfs_
functions are the ones calling the LSM hooks. (The same could be achieved
passing a struct path instead.)
-- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists