linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] IMA: move read/write counters into struct inode

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]

Date:	Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:28:05 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org, zohar@...ibm.com,
	warthog9@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
	kyle@...artin.ca, hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] IMA: move read/write counters into struct inode

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:03:48AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > a) i_writecount is about VM_DENYWRITE, basically. ?Reusing it for ima could
> > get unpleasant; when it's positive, we are fine, but it can get negative as
> > well. ?IMA will have interesting time dealing with that.
> >
> > b) i_count is simply a refcount for struct inode. ?Not exactly the number
> > of dentries, but that's the main contributor. ?Basically, that's "how many
> > pointers outside of inode hash chains point that that struct inode at the
> > moment".
> 
> My question was deeper. More along the lines of "why would IMA care?"
> 
> How/why could IMA ever care about the pointless and trivial
> differences between its current private open/read/write counts and the
> counts that we already maintain?
> 
> Yes, yes, I realize that they have technical differences in what they
> count. That's not the question. The question is "Why would IMA care?"

I'd rather not say what I think about IMA sanity (and usefulness); as for what
it tries to do...  They want to whine if you open a file that is already opened
for write and they want to whine if you open a file for write when it's already
opened for read.  Unless they decide to leave the file alone, that is.
--
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/