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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200710262356.06562.agruen@suse.de> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:56:06 +0200 From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de> To: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz> Cc: jjohansen@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [AppArmor 32/45] Enable LSM hooks to distinguish operations on file descriptors from operations on pathnames On Friday 26 October 2007 22:58:11 Miklos Szeredi wrote: > For special files, f_op->fsetattr will be NULL, since > init_special_inode() will set up i_fop that way. > > So the filesystem's fsetattr() will only be called for regular files > and/or directories, depending on how it sets up i_fop. > > With the ia_file thing, the filesystem would receive the struct file > pointer in all cases. So the posted patch would break AFS and FUSE, > because they unconditionally use ia_file if available and don't check > the file type. Ah okay, that's what you mean. That's much cleaner than ia_file indeed. > They could check the file type, but still the interface would be ugly. Agreed, that would be ugly. > Ah, so if we kept ATTR_FILE and got rid of iattr_file, would that be OK > for AppArmor? No problem, yes. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists