linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] Security: Add hook to get full maclabel xattr name

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <710000.44550.qm@web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:55:46 -0800 (PST)
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dave Quigley <dpquigl@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
	viro@....linux.org.uk, bfields@...ldses.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] Security: Add hook to get full maclabel xattr name


--- Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 19:51 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 04:50:06PM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > As I've told you several times before: we're _NOT_ putting private
> > > ioctl^Hxattrs onto the wire. If the protocol can't be described in an
> > > RFC, then it isn't going in no matter what expletive you choose to
> > > use...
> > 
> > It's as unstructured as the named attributes already in.  Or file data
> > for that matter.
> 
> Describing what is supposed to be a security mechanism in a structured
> fashion for use in a protocol should hardly be an impossible task (and
> AFAICS, Dave & co are making good progress in doing so). If it is, then
> that casts serious doubt on the validity of the security model...

Now this is were I always get confused. I sounds like you're
saying that a name/value pair is insufficiently structured for
use in a protocol specification.

> There should be no need for ioctls.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned you just threw a bunny under
the train for no apparent reason. What have ioctls got to do with
anything?


Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
--
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/