linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ubifs: Remove dead xattr code

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55DE6130.1060905@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:00:32 +0800
From:	Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Josh Cartwright <joshc@...com>
CC:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Subodh Nijsure <snijsure@...d-net.com>,
	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
	Brad Mouring <brad.mouring@...com>,
	Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@...com>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ubifs: Remove dead xattr code

On 08/26/2015 10:15 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:48:38AM +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
>> On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> This is a partial revert of commit d7f0b70d30ffb9bbe6b8a3e1035cf0b79965ef53
>>> ("UBIFS: Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS").
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>> 	What about a full reverting of this commit. In ubifs, we
>> *can* support any namespace of xattr including user, trusted, security
>> or other anyone prefixed by any words. But we have a check_namespace()
>> in xattr.c to limit what we want to support. That said, if we want to
>> "Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS", what we need to do is
>> just extending the check_namespace() to allow security namespace pass.
>> And yes, check_namespace() have been supporting security namespace.
>
> Is this good enough?  Yes, it'd mean that the xattrs end up on disk, but
> then who's responsible for invoking the selected LSMs inode_init_security() hooks?
> AFAICT, we'd still need to invoke security_inode_init_security for newly
> created inodes (which, Richard's proposed commit still does).

OH, right. My bad!!!! I missed the security_inode_init_security().
Besides to allow security.* prefix in xattr, we still need to call
security_inode_init_security() in ubifs_create(). That's true.

So what we need to remove is only the ubifs_xattr_handlers.

Thanx Josh, you are right.

And Richard, sorry for my bad mind.

Reviewed-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@...fujitsu.com>

Thanx
Yang
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Josh (who, admittedly, is neither a filesystem nor security module guy :)
>

--
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/