linux-kernel - Re: [TOMOYO #6 02/21] Add struct vfsmount to struct task

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200801082339.CGC57333.OJFVHMSFOLFtOQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:	Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:39:03 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	hch@...radead.org
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, takedakn@...data.co.jp
Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #6 02/21] Add struct vfsmount to struct task_struct.

Hello.

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Just FYI:  A NACK to such an addition doesn't simply go away by
> ignoring it.
Excuse me. What NACK is remaining?

About the below comments?
> > NACK to this. Passing function parameters through the task_struct is
> > definitely not an acceptable hack
> 
> Exactly.  Having a vfsmount other than the current processes root or
> current working directory in task_struct doesn't make any sense.

I explained that this approach pushes the parameter on the stack memory
and behaves as if the parameter was passed by function calls.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/19/80

But if this approach is still unacceptable,
please discuss and adopt AppArmor's patches as soon as possible.
Both AppArmor and TOMOYO needs vfsmount parameters, but
I'm sad to see no comments on AppArmor's vfsmount patches.

Regards.
--
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/