[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1228161612.18720.211.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:00:12 -0500
From: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@...data.co.jp>,
Toshiharu Harada <haradats@...data.co.jp>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Crispin Cowan <crispin@...spincowan.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #13 (mmotm 2008-11-19-02-19) 01/11] Introduce
security_path_clear() hook.
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 20:25 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> plain text document attachment (introduce-security_path_clear.patch)
> To perform DAC performed in vfs_foo() before MAC, we let security_path_foo()
> save a result into our own hash table and return 0, and let security_inode_foo()
> return the saved result. Since security_inode_foo() is not always called after
> security_path_foo(), we need security_path_clear() to clear the hash table.
This seems very fragile and unmaintainable to me. The fact that you
even need a security_path_clear() hook suggests that something is wrong
with the other security_path* hooks. I'd suggest that you explicitly
pass the result of the security_path* hooks down to the security_inode*
hooks instead. What do others think?
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
--
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