linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] fanotify, inotify, dnotify, security: add security hook for fs notifications

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: <079745c94c232591453dcb01c9d9406b721bb6bf.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:22:03 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Aaron Goidel <acgoide@...ho.nsa.gov>, paul@...l-moore.com
Cc:     selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz,
        amir73il@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fanotify, inotify, dnotify, security: add security
 hook for fs notifications

On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 10:18 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 09:49 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 7/10/19 9:38 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > On 7/10/2019 6:34 AM, Aaron Goidel wrote:
> > > > @@ -3261,6 +3262,26 @@ static int selinux_inode_removexattr(struct dentry *dentry, const char *name)
> > > >  	return -EACCES;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static int selinux_inode_notify(struct inode *inode, u64 mask)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	u32 perm = FILE__WATCH; // basic permission, can a watch be set?
> > > 
> > > We don't use // comments in the Linux kernel.
> > > 
> > 
> > I thought that we had recently moved into the 21st century on that issue,
> > but I don't see it mentioned in coding-style.rst.  Maybe we need a Doc update.
> > 
> > checkpatch allows C99 comments by default.
> > Joe, do you recall about this?
> 
> My recollection is it was something I thought was
> just simple and useful so I added it to checkpatch
> without going through the negative of the nominal
> approvals required by modifying CodingStyle.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/8/625