| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:06:01 +0200 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: sds@...ho.nsa.gov CC: serge@...lyn.com, takedakn@...data.co.jp, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, miklos@...redi.hu, hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, haradats@...data.co.jp Subject: Re: (repost) Confirmation of methods for calculating requested pathname. On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Stephen Smalley wrote: > No, that idea seemingly died because both Al and Miklos thought it was > wrong to add new security hooks to the same code path (vs. moving the > existing ones to the callers), I do think that duplicating hooks is the wrong approach, but it does have the minimal impact of all the solutions, and the duplication can be consolidated later. So in the end this might be the easiest way forward. What Al is violently opposed to is removing the vfs_foo() API which separates the "VFS core", which doesn't know anything abount mounts, from the rest of the VFS. But as Jamie pointed out, we've already sneaked in vfsmounts via the r/o bind mounts patches. I don't see why we would need to strictly separate the mount namespace handling from the VFS core. Miklos -- 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