linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/14] VFS: Implement a filesystem superblock creation/configuration context [ver #6]

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]

Message-ID: <3054.1509120184@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:03:04 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] VFS: Implement a filesystem superblock creation/configuration context [ver #6]

Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com> wrote:

> Yes I did mean vfs_parse_sb_flag_option().
> 
> Yes, I understand its purpose, but it would be cleaner if all the
> option parsing was done in fc->ops->parse_option().
> 
> It might be worth introducing the vfs_parse_sb_flag_option(), to be
> called from ->parse_option().

I was trying to relieve the filesystem of the requirement to have to deal with
common stuff and also the need to talk directly to the LSM.

> > Btw, how would it affect the LSM?
> 
> LSM would have to reject a "reset" if not enough privileges to
> *create* a new fs instance, since it essentially requires creating a
> new config, which is what is done when creating an fs instance.

That's not what I'm asking.  Would the reset change LSM state?  Reset security
labels and options?

> > Sorry, how does the new, clean one do it without handling these options?
> > There is no MS_* mask passed in, except to fsmount().
> 
> The new one certainly should.

Should what?

> Ignoring unknown flags/options is generally a bad idea.

They're not unknown - just not of interest to the filesystem.

David