linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak

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: <1244516211.3804.24.camel@dyn9002018117.watson.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:56:51 -0400
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak

On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 09:16 +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Ok, so instead of having a full fledge single security layer, only add
> > the security layer for those places where both the LSM hooks and IMA
> > co-exist: security_file_mmap, security_bprm_check, security_inode_alloc,
> > security_inode_free, and security_file_free. As the LSM hooks are called
> > 'security_XXXX', the call would look something like:
> > 
> > security_all_inode_free() {
> >         ima_inode_free()
> >         security_inode_free()
> > }
> 
> Yes, it only needs to be a wrapper.  The above is ugly, how about:

agreed!  But changing only these 5 security_ hook names and leaving the
rest alone is even uglier.

> security_inode_free()
> {
> 	ima_inode_free();
> 	lsm_inode_free();
> }
> 
> I think we may have come full circle on the naming of the LSM hook, but 
> 'security_*' was never great given that it's only supposed to be covering 
> access control.

so why not 'mac_'?

Mimi Zohar

--
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/