[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22549.1197565271@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:01:11 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
Karl MacMillan <kmacmill@...hat.com>, viro@....linux.org.uk,
hch@...radead.org, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/28] SECURITY: Allow kernel services to override LSM settings for task actions [try #2]
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> They would correspond with the operations provided by the /dev/cachefiles
> interface, at the granularity you want to support distinctions to be made.
Can this be made simpler by the fact that /dev/cachefiles has its own unique
label (cachefiles_dev_t).
> Could just be a single 'setcontext' permission if that is all you want to
> control distinctly, or could be a permission per operation.
There is only one operation that makes sense to have a permission: "set
context and begin caching".
All the other operations on a file descriptor attached to /dev/cachfiles are
necessary for there to be a managed cache at all, and given that you've
managed to open /dev/cachefiles that's sufficient access for those, I think.
> If the latter, you don't really need a label for the object, and can
> just use the supplied context/secid as the object of the permission
> check, ala:
> rc = avc_has_perm(tsec->sid, secid, SECCLASS_CACHEFILES,
> CACHEFILES__SETCONTEXT);
Ummm. I was under the impression that the target SID had to be a member of
target class.
David
--
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