linux-kernel - Re: fanotify as syscalls

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: <200909212204.51077.agruen@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:04:50 +0200
From:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	alan@...ux.intel.com, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: fanotify as syscalls

On Saturday, 19 September 2009 5:04:31 Eric Paris wrote:
> Let me start by saying I am agreeing I should pursue subtree
> notification.  It's what I think everyone really wants.  It's a great
> idea, and I think you might have a simple way to get close.  Clearly
> these are avenues I'm willing and hoping to pursue.  Also I say it
> again, I believe the interface as proposed (except maybe some of my
> exclusion stuff) is flexible enough to implement any of these ideas.
> Does anyone disagree?

It does seem flexible enough. However, the current interface assumes "global" 
listeners (the mask argument of fanotify_init):

  int fanotify_init(int flags, int f_flags, __u64 mask,
		    unsigned int priority);

Once subtree support is added, this parameter becomes obsolete. That's pretty 
broken for a syscall yet to be introduced.

> BUT to solve one of the main problems fanotify is intending to solve it
> needs a way to be the 'fscking all notifier.'  It needs to be the whole
> damn system.

Think of a system after boot, with a single global namespace. Whatever you 
access by filename is reachable from the namespace root. At this point, 
nothing more global exists. A listener can watch the mount points of 
interest, and everything's fine.

What's a bit more tricky is to ensure that this listener will continue to 
receive all events from whatever else is mounted anywhere, irrespective of 
namespaces. I think we can get there.

By the way, Documentation/filesystems/sharedsubtree.txt describes how 
filesystem namespaces work.

Thanks,
Andreas
--
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/