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  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:	Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:58:06 +0200
From:	Marco Stornelli <>
To:	Al Viro <>
CC:	Steven Whitehouse <>,
	Andi Kleen <>,
	Andi Kleen <>,,,,,,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Cache xattr security drop check for write v2


Il 31/05/2011 22:07, Al Viro ha scritto:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 07:42:26PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
>> Yes, it should test for xattr too,
> Frankly, I suspect that the sanest way to handle that is this:
> 	* new superblock flag - MS_NOSEC
> 	* S_NOSEC is never set unless we have MS_NOSEC
> 	* mount_bdev() sets it before calling fill_super callback.
> 	* ocfs2 and fuse *clear* it in their fill_super
> 	* btrfs manually sets it in its ->mount()
> ... and if gfs2 or any other non-trivial fs wants to use that, it'll need
> to set MS_NOSEC in its ->mount() and take care of clearing S_NOSEC whenever
> we decide it might've gone stale (a-la your patch).

several fs now uses MS_NOSEC (because this flag is set in mount_bdev()) 
but I don't see any user of the function inode_has_no_xattr() in the 
latest version. If I well understand, a fs that wants to manage this 
feature has to set MS_NOSEC and calls when needed this function, isn't 
it? So at this point, why there aren't any user of this function?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists