[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200708170036.34276.agruen@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:36:33 +0200
From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: torvalds@...l.org, viro@....linux.org.uk, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
casey@...aufler-ca.com, 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 13:40, David Howells wrote:
>
> Hi Linus, Al,
>
> Would you object greatly to functions like vfs_mkdir() gaining a security
> parameter? What I'm thinking of is this:
>
> int vfs_mkdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
> struct security *security)
>
> Where the security context is the state of the context at the time the call
> was issued:
>
> struct security {
> uid_t fsuid;
> git_t fsgid;
> struct group_info *group_info;
> void *security;
> struct key *session_keyring;
> struct key *process_keyring;
> struct key *thread_keyring;
>
> And perhaps:
>
> struct audit_context *audit_context;
> seccomp_t seccomp;
> };
>
> This would, for the most part, be a temporary affair, being set up by such
> as sys_mkdir()/sys_mkdirat() from data held in task_struct.
That's additional setup work unless that struct can be embedded in
task_struct. We would be complicating the common / fast / local case to
simplify the not-so-common case or cases.
-- 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