[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100125213042.GZ19799@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:30:42 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Fix 1 untangling ima mess, part 2 with counters
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 02:24:37PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> The IMA counters are updated in alloc_file() and __dentry_open().
> __dentry_open() is called from a couple of places:
> lookup_instantiate_filp(), nameidata_to_filp() and dentry_open. Of
> these calls, files are only being measured in the nameidata_to_filp()
> path. So yes, the current ima_path_check() needs to be moved to after
> the dentry_open() in nfsd_open(), and also added after each of the other
> dentry_open() and lookup_instantiate_filp() calls. Otherwise the
> counters will be correct, but the files will not be measured.
Wrong. lookup_instantiate_filp() is followed by do_filp_open() ones.
So no, we don't need to add there. As for other dentry_open(), I'm
not at all convinced that we *want* ima_path_check() done for all
of those; it should be decided on per-call basis and it's not a trivial
decision.
--
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