[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081206061642.GM28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 06:16:42 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
serue@...ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, takedakn@...data.co.jp,
haradats@...data.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH (mmotm-2008-12-02-17-08)] Introduce
security_path_set/clear() hooks.
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 04:53:18PM -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > Right. Locations of inserting security_path_set()/security_path_clear() pairs
> > are subset of mnt_want_write()/mnt_drop_write() pairs. Thus, we can insert
> > security_path_set()/security_path_clear() pairs into
> > mnt_want_write()/mnt_drop_write() pairs, if we can tolerate performance
> > regression. According to our rough measurement, there is about 8 - 22% of
> > performance regression. But this approach needs minimum modification to the
> > existing kernel (only two hooks to be inserted).
>
> I assume you also need separate hooks to cover the read-only open case?
> As for your performance, your implementation of mp_* is clearly
> non-optimal, so I'd expect there is plenty of room for improvement
> there.
And just what will happen if you end up with foo_mkdir() calling something
that does e.g. pathname resolution in fs-controlled private namespace and
creates/removes some files there?
--
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