linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/11] mount ownership and unprivileged mount syscall (v9)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Xine.LNX.4.64.0803191003480.14598@us.intercode.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:04:16 +1100 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org, serue@...ibm.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov, eparis@...hat.com,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] mount ownership and unprivileged mount syscall
 (v9)

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

> > We might need a user_mount hook which is called once the core kernel code 
> > determines that it is a a valid unprivileged mount (although the sb_mount 
> > hook will already have been called, IIUC).
> 
> Does the order matter between core code's and the security module's
> permission checks?

Yes, the model is DAC before MAC.

>  If it does, the cleanest would be to just move the
> core checks before the sb_mount hook, no?

Correct.

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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/