linux-kernel - Re: [patch 5/8] vfs: annotate permission operations

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: <20080531082356.GE24135@infradead.org>
Date:	Sat, 31 May 2008 04:23:56 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 5/8] vfs: annotate permission operations

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:32:50PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> 
> Add more PERM_OP_ flags to permission() calls.  This allows
> filesystems like NFS and security modules like AppArmor to make
> precise decisions about whent permissions need to be checked, and when
> they will be checked later together with the actual operation.

Where the heck does this PERM_OP crap come from?  More MAY_ flags make
sense in some cases, but we should introduce them on a per-need basis
(e.g. to replace lookup intents in many cases), and without a new
PERM_OP_ namespace.

--
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/