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  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:   Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:15:54 -0400
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, lkp@...org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        tycho@...ker.com, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
        vgoyal@...hat.com, christian.brauner@...lbox.org,
        amir73il@...il.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces

I'm really confused what problem that is trying to be solved, here,
but it **feels** really, really wrong.

Why do we need to store all of this state on a per-file basis, instead
of some kind of per-file system or per-container data structure?

And how many of these security.foo@...=bar xattrs do you expect there
to be?  How many "foo", and how many "bar"?

Maybe I missed the full write up, in which case please send me a link
to the full writeup --- ideally in the form of a design doc that
explains the problem statement, gives some examples of how it's going
to be used, what were the other alternatives that were considered, and
why they were rejected, etc.

Thanks,

					- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists